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

Littleolive oil

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Littleolive oil

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

Moved from Arbitration request to enforcement

This request for arbitration enforcement centers around the six threaded posts on the page where I have been subject to many accusations and emotive commentary from the very start by Olive, where Olive has also been engaged in POV pushing.

I made this edit reverting a bold change to the article [1]. I posted this on the talk page explaining my reasoning: [2]. This was responded with:[3]

"Wolfie: That you think you have the right or expertise to determine what qualifies as a physicists work and what doesn't, that you unilaterally edit based on this determination, that you would deep revert another editor's painstaking work, unilaterally, based on some notion you have about what a scientists work is, and that you would then threaten editors on this page should they disagree with you is ownership and beyond the pale. You are skating on the thinnest of ice. Littleolive oil" - 3 Sept 2013

Later: [4]

"No editor has the right to determine a scientist's work does not qualify as his work. While you can determine that the sources are critical of the work dismissing the research out of hand as not part of a life's work in not your or our business as editors. Further most scientists I know would never take that step, critical of the work sure, but not the next step which you take here by excluding the research from the research section in this article based o n your personal opinion of what is research and what isn't. Such a move clearly illustrates a POV. Further you reverted an editor who has been uninvolved in these discussion after he spent a fair amount of time working on the article. Ownership." - 3 Sept 2013

An example of POV pushing is the defence of an award viewed negatively by the independent reliable sources by proposing that we use the awards own website to offset any negative commentary about the award and framing it as though we are POV for not including positive primary sourced material [5]. All contrary arguments were ignored (WP:IDHT): [6][7], (both 2 Sept 2013) response by MastCell: [8] (3 Sept 2013) which accords with standard policy, but was ignored in subsequent discussion: [9][10] (both 3 Sept 2013)

Note that Littleolive oil has also been demanding that I get consensus before making any edits: [11][12] (both 17 Aug 2013), despite there being no onus for me to do so in policy for standard cleanup or other edits trying to fix an article. i.e We have WP:BRD on wikipedia. I highlighted as such [13] (16 Aug 2013) at the time and also indicated that the text removed was sourced to primary sources and not a particularly large [14] (16 Aug 2013).

Some other individual comments showing large amounts of rhetoric which make collaboration very difficult, including

"Wolfie. The TM arbitration has specific guides which you chose to ignore. There is no chilling effect when citing a guide for editing. If you chose to ignore that guide that is your choice. You are not understanding me. You deleted with out discussion and with no policy support pertinent content to this article which weakens the article. Further you misunderstand and misuse fringe. Nor have you outlined content that describes Hagelin's research. Your ownership, tone and arguments for deleting content on this article are not acceptable per Wikipedia. Please reconsider my points."[15] (17 Aug 2013)

"You are dealing this way with a BLP and another human being's life and do so to satisfy some notion you have of what fringe means. I have been willing from the beginning of the GA process to collaborate with those willing to make this article better. This is not a game Wolfie, this is a man's life. If you had concerns discuss them, collaborate, but leaching out content based on false premises is unconscionable" [16] (18 Aug 2013)

IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

There is more evidence but I am aware that AE prefer shorter filings. On request I can elaborate on all of the specifics, but reading over the latest 6 or so sections here provides the context: [17]. I also have on-wiki evidence of a conflict of interest that does not involve outing that is in the form of a diff to a rev deleted page, but I am taking extra care in withholding it at present. I would prefer not to show the diff without some sort of approval from an arbitrator, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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

Olive has already been blocked under the discretionary sanctions and thus is aware of them: [18]. Olive has been asked to stop directing the assumptions of bad faith at me by myself and another: [19][20].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Context: In John Hagelin, the article was edited and achieved GA through the editing of, amongst others, Little olive. This article at the time of its promotion was skewed, see [21] and thus was delisted as having been inadequately reviewed (see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/John_Hagelin/1 for more details). Since that time I have been trying to bring the article up to the WP:FRINGE standards as well as WP:RS, WP:OR etc, as I have with other articles such as the Maharishi Effect and Maharishi_Vedic_Approach_to_Health. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

comments to individuals

@Sandstein, the issue is one of hostility and civil language on the talk page which makes any collaboration near impossible and an unwillingness to accept standard policy reasons given for edits, i.e POV pushing. With 17k edits to wikipedia, Littleolive is not new to editing here, so it is not just a matter of not knowing policy. An example of this is trying to use the website of a minor award to make the award seem more positive than the secondary sources treat it. Another is an unwilling to accept the deletion of content sourced to unreliable fringe sources (the issue of fringe sourcing was highlighted by the closer durings its GA delist [22] - 8 Aug 2013) and trying to remove a secondary source based on original research: [23][24] (both 2 Sept 2013). To get the full context I suggest reading the threads if you have time. POV pushing is very difficult to show in individual diffs. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @Sanstein. I'd also like to point out that Keithbob, Olive and other TM advocates have conflated the statement of principles in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Peremptory_reversion_or_removal_of_sourced_material with discretionary sanctions and Arbitration remedies and have been using this principle to claim that any editor who deletes a non-trivial amount of content is violating sanctions. They have continued this despite being informed that this is not what principles are. I can substantiate this with diffs if requested. No remedies exist which prevent bold edits to remove content. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @Keithbob. As you have already been informed several months ago, statements of principles are not sanctions, and are general statements about wikipedia: [25] (27 March 2013). At the time I requested that you bring specific policy-based objections to the relevant talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @Sandstein, perhaps you can clarify to Keithbob and Olive that Principles are not sanctions? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @Keithbob, In every instance of me making bold edits as you have shown, where specific objections or issues where raised I have engaged on the talk page, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @David in DC, Sandstein has read the supplied evidence. Have you looked at it? There was only a single revert so I'm not sure why you say "Posted by me after the first time Wolfie reverted me". You appear to characterise a single revert of a collection of bold edits (made over a short period) as a major incident. I consider a revert part of the normal consensus reaching approach when there is a disagreement. Hence Bold, Revert, Discuss (WP:BRD). I have seen discussions where reverts happen mere minutes to seconds after the bold edit. The onus is on the person making the change to justify it and to gain consensus. I reverted the bold additions which took place over 11 hours or so, 2 hours after they finished. But time isn't that important, there is no time restriction on WP:BRD. Of my single revert you said: "The near realtime reversion of edits is just plain annoying. it bespeaks WP:OWN, WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS problems at a high degree of magnitude." [26] - 3 Sept 2013. Considering reverting (and a single revert in this instance) is part of the normal consensus approach I think this is a bit of an extrapolation to make with regards to good faith edits I have made (I also opened a discussion on the talk page immediately after I reverted to discuss the issue). IRWolfie- (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @Seraphimblade Please note that the question of employment which I posed here: [27] (note the date) was what I sought for clarification with ArbCom several months ago (5 of April 2013): [28], and was discussed in some detail but non-conclusively by the Arbitrators. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) @Montantabw. As far as I recall I have only ever edited one article you have also edited (or at least this is the only one that comes to mind with significant interactions), Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2 where you insisted that a book written by Disney was reliable for medical claims Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2#Book_check_-_Becker and were insistent on using a study of 10 people Talk:Animal-assisted_therapy/Archive_2#Deletion_of_Barak_et_al..2C_.282001.29 (rejecting these is not a "very odd interpretation of WP guidelines" at all). This You are commenting here without looking at the situation, pre-judging what I have done based on your own interactions with me and pre-judging Olive based on your interactions with her, and providing zero evidence for your claims. Since this seems to be simply attacking me as an editor without commentary about the current case, I will note that I have also sought feedback from the community which was overwhelmingly positive: Wikipedia:Editor_review/IRWolfie-. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC) @Admins Can an admin please clarify to Keithbob and Olive that principles in an arbitration case are not discretionary sanctions? IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC) @Seraphimblade The incident you were referring to about speculation was 5 months ago, and I brought the issue to ArbCom immediately after posting the question at the time: [29] because I did not know what was acceptable with regards to showing a COI (and ArbCom was fairly indecisive. here is the full clarification request from that time prior to it being archived: [30]. I suggest looking at the Arbitrator views also, they are quite mixed: [31] about how to proceed. I should highlight that I have no intention of providing any details about a COI without first obtaining, privately, some sort of permission from an arbitrator. @Seraphimblade, I have contacted an arbitrator, NuclearWarfare, who agrees that I can show you this link at AE, to establish a COI, which is a link to a rev del: rev del, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC) IRWolfie- wrote to me and asked if he could cite in his AE request a link to a deleted version of olive's userpage, which was replicated across the web on a number of different sites (including an internet archive site). As the page was merely deleted (as opposed to suppressed), I pointed him to the closest available version of the page accessible via Special:Undelete. I did not give him the text, only the link itself (he can't access the text, although it is of course identical to the archival version). NW (Talk) 21:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade, I have no desire to reveal anyone's identity, nor do I have any intention to do so in any circumstance (also I don't know anyone's identity or any means of ascertaining it that I can think of, but that's not the point). I think I have generally taken due caution to ensure that. Initially I intended to file at Arbitration but they redirected me here [32] (version as of today). At the time, several months ago, I asked Olive a direct question about whether she had a COI in relation to John Hagelin because I didn't know the answer. I have no intention of repeating that in this topic area. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade please note [33] where Olive, at the Arbitration request thread, has misrepresented what you have said: " I am also being sanctioned apparently because I said something about content. ", IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [34]

Discussion concerning Littleolive oil

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Littleolive oil

Moved from RfArbitration:

• Reminder to all: Removal of sourced content is an aspect of an arbitration discretionary sanction. Like it or not we cannot trump a DS on sourcing with comments here. The sanction specifically notes peremptory deletion, that is deletion with out discussion, and why is that one wonders? I'd guess because deletion of content with out discussion is disruptive to the collaborative process. Wolfie's deep revert of stylistic edits by an uninvolved editor, which to my knowledge he never addressed, while not a removal of RS is also disruptive, shows alack of respect for the editor who made the edits, and implies ownership. An insistence that WP:Bold is a reason to remove content this way, and or to remove RS does not jive with the Arbitration discretionary sanction. If we want to change the sanction, back to the arbs we go and ask for a clarification. Until then, requests that an editor not delete content especially with out reason or discussion, and eventual consensus, and who is potentially, in violation of the discretionary sanction should be respected and those editors should not be accused of POV pushing. That seems wrong to me and at least is an unfair view of the situation.(olive (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Thank you for specifying your concerns (in bold). I’d like to address them:

• behavior in this very thread regarding hyperfocus on sourcing to the exclusion of other content policies)

My comment on this page was a reminder that issues here deal with AE and the arbitration principle that can invite a discretionary sanction. Some comments appeared to be more suited to a content policy notice board. AE does not deal with content, so I assumed I should not discuss content policies here. My comment here in no way excludes my position on content policies discussed in multiple places in an appropriate forum as a reading of the threads on the John Hagelin article demonstrates:

• GA status on the John Hagelin article: I’m not sure why this issue was brought up in reference to me nor why its is being used in some way to support a sanction. I did not mention the GA status of this article.

History:

The John Hagelin article was written with Input from multiple editors.

I applied for GA status.

I and another editor spent weeks working in the article especially on sources to comply with the reviewer concerns.[35]

The reviewer gave the Article GA status

IRWolfie saw what he considered ”fringe” concerns.He goes to a NB. My comment there:

'I'm happy to have more input on the article, and /or a GAR and suggest this discussion be moved to the article talk page. I will add a notice to the article talk page notifying editors of this posting on the Fringe Theories NB. Thanks (olive (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC))

The article is brought to GAReview: My comment:

...I welcome a uninvolved editor review of the article and I am happy to help implement changes to improve the article.(olive (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC))

The article is delisted

Where in this sequence of events is there AE sanctionable behavior.

• Tendentious editing:

In each discussion on the Hagelin page, I discussed my points often citing policy as I see making between 3-5 points, then withdraw when progress was not being made or there was an impasse, noting concerns. For example:

I will withdraw from this discussion now, given this discussion is not progressing. I note the misuse and or misunderstanding of policy in the thread above and in a BLP.

I hope you'll stay. I am sorry an uninvolved editor who spent the time you did on this article was reverted unilaterally. I have little more to say on this article at this time since no progress is being made. This was a GA article which I spent a lot of time working on in compliance with the reviewer. I doubt that it is at that standard now. I would be happy to have an uninvolved editor try to make something of this article. (olive (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)) How is this tendentious behavior?

• Undue weight to fringe viewpoints:

I have no idea what this means and no idea what this refers to this article. This article is a BLP. It in part chronicles a scientist who takes a turn from more main stream science to a more edge of science position. The article must describe both aspects of his career. I did in fact suggest that Wolfie’s mass deletion here weighted the article away from Hagelin’s controversial work towards his more mainstream work.

Thanks(olive (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Comments from an uninvolved(editor)

These comments by an uninvolved editor sum up well my feeling about how this article should be edited. They also describe from a neutral view what is going on, on this talk page.

I've gotta say, on the merits, I think the attempt to link consciousness with physical cosmology seems more than a little nutty. But that's mostly an argument that ought to be settled in the other articles in the TM suite. This here's a BLP. It ought to lay out Hagelin's life and views, without giving undue weight to his critics. They belong here, but not in the same way that they belong on pages like The Maharishi Effect, Transcendental Meditation technique and the like. I fear our project's not-entirely-unreasonable fear of FRINGiness, and of what User:JzGuy has correctly identified in the past as the problem of "polite POV-pushers", is playing out badly in the context of this BLP. The place for full-throated criticism of Hagelin's theories is on pages devoted to those theories. It's not like there aren't enough TM-themed articles on wikipedia for that. Call the theories wacky there. Tread carefully when you're getting close to calling the living theorist wacky here. [36]  

In my view, the proper balance between WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP is misapprehended here. Frighteningly so. [37]   (olive (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

• • Final statement

A sanction against me here would be wrong and unfair. There is no evidence that shows I have violated an arbitration principle, a policy, or a guideline. Nor is there any evidence of tendentious editing.

I want to apologize for not adding diffs about Wolfie's behaviour. I had a very serious real life issue to deal with, and don't feel I can do more here. Anyway,attacking Wolfie would only turn this page into a toxic mess or more so than it is now and frankly there are enough toxic situations on Wikipedia. The John Hagelin talk page contains the evidence in this case, and a careful reading from a neutral position and especially noting the analysis added by an experienced editor in the final thread, an editor with no agenda, tells the story. I don't see that anything I can say about Wolfie can be helpful here. If there are concerns about him as I have had, across Wikipedia, they will show up in time, and if there are, and if he's smart he will fix them before that happens. Best Wishes.(olive (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Seraphim. I added content from an editor on the JH talk page which everyone should have read. I say correctly he is an editor in the second line. Its late. I just spent an hour talking to a mother whose child committed suicide. It was a simple mistake, a part of the circumstances I'm in, in RL. What are you suggesting? That I would lie about something that could be checked in a second? I noted in a comment here at the top of the page,"Some comments appeared to be more suited to a content policy notice board. AE does not deal with content, so I assumed I should not discuss content policies here. My comment here in no way excludes my position on content policies discussed in multiple places in an appropriate forum as a reading of the threads on the John Hagelin article demonstrates: that this was not a content discussion and even if an editor did start talking about content... you don't sanction them for six months. What are you talking about here?(olive (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Wolfie: ..."it is not the place of AE to adjudicate the content dispute. None of us here are deciding who's right, and none of my comments are intended to indicate that either editor's view of the proper content is correct, nor are they an endorsement thereof. We address only conduct. (Comment from below by Seraphimblade)(olive (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC))

Statement by Keithbob

(Disclaimer: Over the past 14 months there have been 500 edits to the John Hagelin article and I made 10 of those edits -only 3 edits in 2013)

IRWolfie's repeated removal of sourced content

Summary IRWolfie's editing on the TM topic has been disruptive and he has been harassing User:Littleolive oil for several months. This filing and the one yesterday at ArbCom are the most recent examples of this.

• Wolfie has repeatedly deleted large amounts of sourced content, without discussion or consensus, on numerous occasions, despite multiple warnings. Wolfie has repeatedly violated the TM ArbCom principle which says:
• Peremptory reversion or removal of sourced material--Peremptory reversion or removal of material referenced to reliable sources and added in good faith by others, is considered disruptive when done to excess. This is particularly true of controversial topics where it may be perceived as confrontational.

In the remedies section the TM Arb Com it is made clear that all principles are sanction-able:

• All parties instructed: All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them. [38]
• Warnings per descretionary sanctions: (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;)[39]
  • Warned by Keithbob on March 26, 2013 @ Wolfie's user talk [40]
  • Warned by Littleolive oil on August 13, 2013 @ John Hagelin [41]
  • Warned by EMP on August 15-16, 2013 @ Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [42] [43]
• Wolfie's removal of sourced content within the TM topic since being warned:
  • 3/29/13 John Hagelin [44][45][46][47]
  • 3/29/13 TM and Cult Mania [48]
  • 4/8/13 TM-Sidhi program [49]
  • 4/8/13 John Hagelin [50]
  • 4/8/13 Maharishi Effect [51][52][53][54][55][56][57]
  • 4/15/13 Maharishi Effect [58]
  • 8/10/13 Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [59][60][61]
  • 8/13/13 Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health [62][63]
  • 8/16/13 John Hagelin [64]

IRWolfie's harassment of Littleolive oil

• Decorum and assumptions of good faith--Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. [bold added by me][65]

Wolfie has been harassing Littleolive oil (Olive) for several months. Since Olive attained GA status for the John Hagelin article, Wolfie has:

• Removed large amounts of content fron the Hagelin article (see above)
• 4/5/13 Nominated the Hagelin article for GA delisting [66]
• 4/5/13 At an unrelated AE thread [67] and on Olive's talk page, he makes allegations about her real life place of employment [68]
• 4/15/13 Opened an ArbCom request for clarification with Olive and the John Hagelin article as it's focus [69]
• 4/8/13 Wolfie is warned by Ched to stop harassing Olive [70]
• 9/3/13 Wolfie files ArbCom request with Olive as the central figure [71]

@Sandstein - I have, on multiple occasions, invited and welcomed editors to the TM articles and other editors have done the same, after all WP is about collaboration. However, IRWolfie has deleted thousands of words and scores of sources, often in a single day, without communicating with anyone on the talk page, before or after the fact. I'm not suggesting that every one of his deletions was inappropriate only that his/her methods are unilateral, non-collaborative and disruptive. ArbCom has indicated that the repeated peremptory deletion of sourced content, on this contentious series of articles, is confrontational editing. The unilateral removal of sources such as a journal published by the AMA or a journal on the Brandon/Hill list (which is recommended by WP:MEDRS) is wrong and Wolfie has refused to cease and desist despite numerous warnings and talk page objections corresponding to his individual edits. [72] To me that's not acceptable and violates the spirit and the letter of the discretionary sanctions I've cited and quoted above.

Statement by David in DC

I came to this page only to try to clean it up stylistically, and to try to apply common WP:BLP principles to it. I ran into a realtime edit conflict with olive and stopped editing. I woke up the next morning to a pleasant surprise, given the hubbub on the talk page. A greeting on my talk page from olive urging me to continue editing, welcoming me, and making clear that the edit conflict was a genuine case of two people stumbling into one another and nothing more.

I hope the admins reviewing this matter will make some judgements about the tenor of the conversation on the talk page amongst olive, Mast and Wolfie. In my opinion there's way too much rancor there. And the parties' contributions to the escalation of the incivility do not seem evenly split. Not by a long shot.

My interactions with olive have been uniformly civil. I've not interacted with Mast at all on any of this, but have found Mast to be extraordinarily skilled at disagreeing without being disagreeable in the past.

I've read posts by Wolfie before, but never interacted with Wolfie until now. I think these diffs tell the remainder of the story:

A) Posted by me after the first time Wolfie reverted me: [73] and [74]
B) olive's reply: [75]
C) Posted by me after my second attempt at clean up, per MOS and BLP: [76] and [77]
D) Wolfie's first reply to me (see the edits below line 201): [78]
E) Wolfie expands on reply: [79]
F: My reaction: [80]
David in DC (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein: I see no behavior by olive warranting administrative action. In my view, the only action Wolfie's complaint merits is summary dismissal. However, if an admin were inclined to take action against olive, based on Wolfie's request, that admin would be required to take Wolfie's own editorial behavior into account. My statement is intended as prophylaxis, should an admin head down the path you've just foresworn. David in DC (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Montanabw

I have never touched any of the articles at issue here, but I have had numerous interactions with both Olive and Wolfie in other contexts. I have only had positive interactions with Olive and find her to be a thoughtful and conscientious editor. Wolfie, on the other hand, has given me nothing but grief. He is disruptive and contentious in his editing pattern nearly everywhere he goes and I dread seeing him appear on any article that I care about editing, for he is certain to trash it with unreasonable demands and his own very odd interpretation of WP guidelines. Therefore, I concur completely with the following statement by Davd in DC: "I see no behavior by olive warranting administrative action. In my view, the only action Wolfie's complaint merits is summary dismissal. However, if an admin were inclined to take action against olive, based on Wolfie's request, that admin would be required to take Wolfie's own editorial behavior into account." I will not provide diffs at this time, but if any admin thinks Olive has done anything wrong beyond responding to some of Wolfie's usual WP:BAIT behavior, I will be glad to produce them later. Montanabw^(talk) 01:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by A Quest For Knowledge

I agree with the AE admins that simply being sourced, does not necessarily mean that content belongs in an article. Individual policies such as verifiability should not be considered in isolation. Other policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:BLP, etc. must also be considered. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

Keithbob's assertions, even with carefully dated diffs, that IRWolfie's edits constitute harassment of Littleolive oil do not seem credible. From her editing history, Littleolive oil has in the past advocated aspects of transcendental meditation that fall outside mainstream science (yogic flying in January 2010). That kind of advocacy might prevent her from making edits to John Hagelin that are neutral. As far as conduct is concerned, the criticisms of IRWolfie by Littleolive oil (and Keithbob) seem to be unsubstantiated personal attacks. Leaving aside the continual insistence on using sources which might not conform to usual wikipedia standards, the casting of aspersions about perceived opponents creates a chilling editing environment which more often that not might drive editors away from an article. Mathsci (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by PumpkinSky

• Maybe it was just a simple mistake about the person being an admin? PumpkinSky talk 15:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• You're assuming it was intentional. Even Sandstein isn't taking action here. Drop the stick. PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Littleolive oil

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

This request does not include evidence in the form of dated diffs. Please provide those and explain how they violate any Wikipedia conduct rule. That is not apparent, at least not to me, from this request. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see anything actionable being reported above by IRWolfie-, Keithbob or David in DC. This doesn't mean that there isn't a problem, just that I can't discern it based on these submissions, or that it doesn't need discretionary sanctions to solve.

The comments by Littleolive oil quoted by IRWolfie- are, in part, unduly confrontative and personalized, but not yet to a degree that sanctions would be needed.

The "removal of sourced content" by IRWolfie- may well have occurred for good editorial reasons (determining otherwise would require us to make a content decision, which is beyond the scope of arbitration and its enforcement process), and the evidence does not establish that and how it was done "peremptorily" or "to excess" as envisioned in the principle quoted by Keithbob. The other actions by IRWolfie- may well have occurred in the context of good faith dispute resolution efforts and it is not clear how they might amount to harassment.

The statement by David in DC also does not make clear how any of the reported events might violate any conduct rule.

Finally, nobody but Keithbob has submitted dated diffs as requested above, so I can't easily tell whether most of this happened yesterday or a year ago.

I'll take no action but leave this open for other admins to evaluate. Maybe they see something actionable.  Sandstein  20:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't taken a look through all the diffs here, but a few things concern me.
  • First is that Olive provides several counter accusations against IRWolfie, but no evidence to back them up. This is never appropriate, and I advise Olive to either provide evidence for these accusations or withdraw them.
  • I am quite concerned by IRWolfie's speculation as to Olive's place of employment. That's brushing awfully close to outing, and is not at all appropriate.
  • While we can't make content determinations here, some of the behavior I'm seeing is reminiscent of other instances I've seen of civil POV pushing, which is sanctionable behavior. A major red flag for that is the constant reference to "sourced content", with as far as I can see little or no attempt to address the concerns of undue weight, fringe topic requirements, and synthesis that have been brought up. Being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion, and any other concerns about even sourced content must be addressed, not ignored.
• This is just from a preliminary look, and I do intend to take a more thorough look tonight or tomorrow, but there are indicators of problems here. I don't believe at this point that they'll yet rise to a sanctionable level on either side, but I'd like to get a better feel for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Broadly concur with Seraphimblade above. Protesting about "removal of sourced content" as if sourcing is the sole requirement for inclusion is the cornerstone of civil POV pushing. Looking through the diffs presented by Keithbob above, I think that particular evidence is likely to draw judgements somewhat contrary to what was intended. CIreland (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• After taking a more thorough look here (and after seeing Littleolive oil exhibit I didn't hear that behavior in this very thread regarding hyperfocus on sourcing to the exclusion of other content policies), I've changed my mind from earlier. There is a lot of casting of aspersions here. One excellent example is the listing as an example of "harassment" that IRWolfie listed an article for GA delisting, without mentioning that the article was in fact found not to meet GA standards and delisted. That doesn't indicate harassment, it indicates apparently good judgment.

Littleolive oil has been sanctioned in the past for tendentious editing, and I'm seeing more of the same. Olive is answering concerns about undue weight to fringe viewpoints with nonanswers about the sourcing of that material. Given the previous sanctions and behavior here, I propose that Littleolive oil be topic banned from the area of transcendental meditation, broadly construed, for six months.

Regardless of any other considerations, our policy on outing is there for a reason. I would therefore also propose to ban IRWolfie from speculating on any aspect of the real-life identity of any editor in the TM area, except that concerns regarding such may be communicated privately to the Arbitration Committee.

Finally, some of the edits noted as "removals" by IRWolfie were rearrangement or changes. This is simple editing. I see IRWolfie generally willing to discuss such edits upon request, so I cannot find any evidence of disruptive editing there. Similarly, while IRWolfie and Olive clash often, I do not see conduct which rises to the level of harassment on a large scale for either one of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link NW/IRWolfie, that certainly does help to establish context. Still, if the material had been long-deleted by the time the comment was made, that indicates that Littleolive oil no longer wished that information to be available on-wiki, and we generally respect such wishes from editors in regards to their real-life identities. I understand the concerns about COI, but generally such concerns can be addressed without going into specifics about an editor's exact identity or place of work. If it is necessary to go into such detail in order to fully explain a concern, that's best handled by privately contacting ArbCom. I hope that makes sense? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
• Littleolive oil, I'd like to address a couple of things. Firstly, it is not the place of AE to adjudicate the content dispute. None of us here are deciding who's right, and none of my comments are intended to indicate that either editor's view of the proper content is correct, nor are they an endorsement thereof. We address only conduct. Secondly, I'm concerned about the section you recently posted, entitled "Comments from an uninvolved admin". The editor whose comments you cite is not an administrator. While this is not, mind you, to say that only the opinions of admins are or should be valued, it's still a misrepresentation. I'm afraid that convinces me further of the necessity of sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • • There's a reason I said "misrepresentation", and not lie. I don't and can't know what was in someone's mind. The only information we have is what they put in their edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SightWatcher

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SightWatcher

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mathsci (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBR&I#SightWatcher topic-banned

SightWatcher was given an extended topic ban following his editing on behalf of Captain Occam.

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

1. [81] Prolonged battleground comment about WP:ARBR&I and me. SightWatcher's name had been mentioned only in passing as one in a list of 10 names. SightWatcher used this as a pretext to make a series of heated statements indistinguishable from comments Captain Occam has been making recently on wikipediocracy.

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

After his extended topic ban was imposed in May 2012, SightWatcher has received multiple warnings from arbitrators.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Recent background In 2013, before September, SightWatcher made only 2 edits to wikipedia. On 29 August an ANI thread was opened about Wer900. I added comments about Wer900's conduct in May 2013.[82][83][84] (Wer900 had agreed to act as a proxy-editor for Captain Occam starting an RfAr on his behalf about my "ownership of Poland-related articles".) Captain Occam drew attention to the thread on wikipediocracy and kept up a running commentary, including claims that arbitrators had given permission for the RfAr. After emails with arbitrators, it appears no such decision was made by arbcom. Wer900 has in the meantime reiterated his intention to name me as a party in a future arbcom case but without giving any policy-based reason.[85] My understanding is that arbitrators have no interest in seeing any evidence provided by Captain Occam.

SightWatcher's edit SightWatcher's name appeared on ANI in a list of editors associated with Captain Occam, without reference to his editing or conduct. The thread started on 29 August. Captain Occam started his running commmentary on wikipediocracy on August 29. On 2 September SightWatcher made a small number of content edits to wikipedia. Before that he had made 5 content edits in 2012 and 2 in 2013.[86] All other edits relate to WP:ARBR&I. In the edit on WP:ANI on 6 September 2013, SightWatcher wrote:

"Why are you bringing me up again? I've avoided you since the beginning of this year, but you're still talking about me. I do not like my name being brought up in discussions that no longer concern me. I think everyone else is tired of hearing your theories about this, and they don't seem to be getting any traction with arbitrators anymore. For example I see that when you tagged Mors Martell as a sock puppet, [87] an arbitrator removed the tag. [88]"

SightWatcher has been inactive on the project in 2012-2013. He reappeared on wikipedia only after Captain Occam started commenting on wikipediocracy on 29 August. Given the acknowledged pattern of proxy-editing surrounding Captain Occam, it is hard to explain SightWatcher's reappearance out-of-the-blue as a coincidence. (So far Wer900 has been the only person to have given a clear account of how Captain Occam solicits users to edit on his behalf.) Prior to his edit on ANI, SightWatcher's editing or conduct had not been discussed in any way at all: his username merely appeared in a list of editors that have been associated with Captain Occam. His own association was made explicit by arbitrators in the 2012 R&I review based on evidence provided by Ferahgo the Assassin. SightWatcher's heated comments above are indistinguishable from off-wiki commentary on the same issues by Captain Occam. SightWatcher's edit violates his extended topic ban. It also appears to be yet another edit made in collaboration with Captain Occam/Ferahgo the Assassin.

1st reply to Sandstein: Mathsci is not under any editing restrictions at ANI.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No allegations have been made without evidence. All those on the list are either banned, blocked or sanctioned. Blocked users include TrevelyanL85A2, like SightWatcher shown in the R&I review to have been in contact with Occam/Ferahgo; they all edited in support of each other. He was indefinitely blocked by Future Perfect in September 2012 after a topic ban violation, reported by me at AE. This report is comparable; I am under no restrictions concerning either. Other blocked users are: Zeromus1, indef blocked by arbitrators as a sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin; Akuri and Mors Martell, both indef blocked by arbitrators as suspicious accounts. All three gradually gravitated towards R&I arbitration proceedings. In December 2012 I already linked to a wikipediocracy posting of Captain Occam in an amendment request. Roger Davies subsequently asked questions about evidence that apparently had been supplied by Occam.[89][90] This is similar to what has happened between Occam and Wer900. I have been informed that arbitrators are currently discussing those on-wiki and off-wiki issues concerning Occam & Wer900; the name of the arbitrator who initiated those discussions has been passed on to Sandstein.

2nd reply to Sandstein: Extended topic ban ≠ interaction ban; can discuss conduct of R&I editors only if own conduct mentioned
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The one-way interaction bans were imposed on Zeromus1 (now indef blocked), The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. Collect also received a logged warning from Future Perfect at Sunrise. The sanctions imposed by arbcom on TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher are extended topic bans identical to those of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam. I am not aware of anybody describing them as one-way interaction bans. I have previously reported Captain Occam at AE in November 2010; Ferahgo the Assassin in 2010 and January 2012; and TrevelyanL95A2 in September 2012. Nothing much has changed since then, apart from Occam's activity on wikipediocracy (which started in November 2012) and Echigo mole's decision to stop operating sockpuppets.

Amendment request, 5 December 2012 In some of his most recent edits, 15 edits back, SightWatcher unsuccessfully appealed his extended topic ban.[91] He simultaneously requested TrevelyanL85A2's extended topic ban to be lifted, even though he was indefinitely blocked, as well as the two one-way interaction bans of The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. Arbitrators discussed interaction bans at length without reaching any conclusions. Apart from Occam's recent heightened activity and outing of me on wikipediocracy, very little has happened since then. Wer900 has made his suggestions about bringing me to justice on behalf of Captain Occam for my "ownership of Poland-related articles". However, in my 17,500+ edits I have never edited any articles on Poland.

Sandstein could seek clarification if he thinks there have been more interactions than one edit in 2013 and my comments here; or if he thinks he can formulate on his own a decision that arbitrators spent over a month debating without coming to any conclusion. So far I have not suggested what result this report might have. I simply have no idea, beyond some form of advice to SightWatcher.

I currently feel that I am being harassed by Captain Occam and Wer900. I have privately requested help from the arbitration committee about this. SightWatcher's post comes at exactly the same time. In the circumstances, since he is a friend of Occam's girlfriend Ferahgo and has previously edited in support of them (as arbitrators phrased it), it is hard to see his edit as unrelated to the current flurry of vehemently anti-Mathsci postings of Occam and Wer900 on wikipediocracy. As Roger Davies has remarked, Occam's aim has always been to "write Mathsci out of the equation." It's not hard to see why. After all I helped identify dubious accounts such as Zeromus1, Akuri and Mors Martell, as well as the numerous socks of Mikemikev and the "proxy editing" involved in the R&I review.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [92]

Discussion concerning SightWatcher

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Alanyst

SightWatcher's response to Mathsci reads to me largely as "get off my back, will ya?" with a bit of commentary about how SightWatcher feels the community regards Mathsci's complaints. It does not read to me as an effort to pursue harassment of Mathsci, to engage in debate about race and intelligence, or to fight any kind of battle.

The text of SightWatcher's R&I topic ban is: "SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned." Mathsci was the one who mentioned Sightwatcher in the first place, and in my opinion SightWatcher's response was measured and "within reason" as the topic ban allows. I recommend that the requested enforcement action be declined. alanyst 07:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

Sandstein, you might should check this. Cla68 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

This is a frivolous request. MathSci opened the door by comparing Sightwatcher's conduct to Wer900's. The terms of Sightwatcher's sanction allow them to respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wer900

I'm sick and tired of Mathsci's rehashing of the Captain Occam brouhaha. Mathsci had already started an AN/I thread against me here, in which I explained that I was merely intending to bring about meaningful reform of Wikipedia governance with the case, and that I did not endorse any of Captain Occam's views on race and intelligence. In fact, no "case" or "proxy editing" ever happened; as retold here, the most I ever did was to ask now-blocked Viriditas (talk · contribs), a user whom I respect, whether he wanted to take the case on my behalf given my relative inexperience with those aspects of Wikipedia. Viriditas declined to take the case (so Mathsci should stop mentioning him), and on the AN/I extracted a promise that I would not edit on Occam's behalf in any way.

Now, with the current AN/I circus regarding my perceived incivility against Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), Mathsci has tried to once again take center stage by bringing up the mere shadow of a nonexistent case against him and making all on the thread believe that somehow his words have substance. Furthermore, when I discussed an email from AGK which gave me the right to carry on the "proxy-editing" he so reviles (a right that I most certainly do not intend to exercise, for his clarification), he was whipped up in an even greater tempest. Mathsci, I quote the relevant portion of the email (although it only represents AGK's opinion on the matter, and is general advice rather than a writ of certiorari [for lack of a better term here]):

Ongoing disputes or grievances can always be brought to arbitration, even if one or more parties is blocked. Arbitration requests by proxy are permissible and, procedurally speaking, simple to arrange. Previously, blocked editors have been allowed to contribute to requests for arbitration by either being temporarily unblocked on condition they edit nothing aside from the arbitration request or by arranging to have an arbitration clerk copy over their statement and supplementary comments from the editor's user talk page.

Again, Mathsci needs to stop bringing me up in regards to this case, stop creating drama, and accept that my actions were not explicitly prohibited, to the best of my knowledge. For the last time, I will not take the R&I case on behalf of Captain Occam; I hope that I have stated this unambiguously for Mathsci to accept and digest. Wer900 • talk 23:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning SightWatcher

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

As Alanyst points out, the topic ban contains the proviso that "This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned." The edit reported here is broadly within the scope of that exception, even if the part about Mors Martell is not. I don't see how this report's repeated mention of the website Wikipediocracy or another user, Captain Occam, has any relevance to the alleged topic ban violation being reported. I'd leave it at a warning to SightWatcher.

The post by Mathsci to which SightWatcher replied, in which Mathsci seems to allege without evidence some sort of offwiki conspiracy by editors including SightWatcher, does not strike me as helpful in the least. Considering WP:ARBR&I#Mathsci: admonished, we may want to consider a warning or discretionary sanction with regard to Mathsci. As an aside, the general tone of parts of the ANI discussion is appalling and confirms my impression that the whole noticeboard is now much more a source of disruption than a place in which to resolve it.  Sandstein  07:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 links to a sanction requiring Mathsci to "refrain from posting further enforcement requests regarding the interaction bans listed here on-wiki without prior private consultation and agreement from an uninvolved adminstrator familiar with the case". Mathsci, who is the administrator, if any, you consulted with in this case?  Sandstein  12:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Cla68, you are subject to an interaction ban with Mathsci as noted here. Are there any grounds why you should not be sanctioned for violating that interaction ban with your edit above?  Sandstein  12:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, so far, the only actionable conduct apparent to me from this thread is Mathsci making this enforcement request in violation of their restriction from making such requests without the consent of an administrator, and Cla68 pointing out that restriction in violation of their own interaction ban with Mathsci. I can't make heads or tails of Mathsci's convoluted allegations (which far exceed 500 words and aren't read in any detail for that reason alone) regarding other editors including Captain Occam and Wer900, but at any rate these allegations are not supported by any diffs and explanations linking them to any active remedies under an arbitration case. In view of that, making such allegations is disruptive.

Taking into consideration the respective findings and sanctions as logged on the case page, as well as the lengthy block log of both users, I intend to block both users for two weeks in enforcement of their respective restrictions, if no other uninvolved administrator disagrees. I will also warn SightWatcher that under the terms of their sanction they may respond to mentions on noticeboards only to the extent necessary to address such mentions, and not to address other topics.  Sandstein  23:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, when I wrote my original comment in this thread, the bans I had in mind were the ones I imposed. I didn't have SightWatcher's ban in mind. T. Canens (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Plot Spoiler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sepsis II (talk) 13:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions

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

1. Today PS deleted a source written by Jonathan Cook used to source a statement by Jonathan Cook as "failing WP:RS".
2. Today PS deleted a source written by Amnesty International that was being used to source what AI had reported under the guise of "Fails WP:RS"
3. Today PS deleted a source by The Electronic Intifada that was being used to source to a statement by EI as "Fails WP:RS"
4. Today PS deletes a source written by Reporters without Borders that was being used to source a statement by RWB, as "removing non-RS".
5. Today PS deletes a source that was an interview of a man being used as a source for that man's view.
6. August 12th PS deletes a massive 18,000 bits of information critical of the US in their relations to Iran, again under the guise of "Removal of unreliable sources", sources included the Washington Post, New York Times, Dennis Kucinich, Scott Ritter,Seymour Hersh, United Nations, ABC, BBC, FOX, the Guardian, and more.

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

1. Warned on April 2010 by Sandstein (talk · contribs)
2. Blocked on June 2010 by Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There are countless more edits like these, where he is deleting well sourced information, coming from PS. It is also interesting to note that the majority of his deletions is of information that could readily be classified as anti-Israeli or pro-Arab. The only time I found where PS simply left the information, added a fact tag, and deleted the source, was with this edit -[93], probably because the sourced material was a criticism of Palestinians. PS seems to have a different standard depending on whether the information is infavour or against Israel/Palestine. He will fight to keep what another editor called a "Self published press release from an advocacy group" - [94], when the group is pro-Israeli, yet he will fight for deletion when a pro-Israeli organization is being criticized - [95]. I think it is clear this editor is causing great harm to wikipedia and has a clearly pro-Israel bend to his edits.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[96]

Discussion concerning Plot Spoiler

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Plot Spoiler

First, the personal attacks and failure to assume good faith from Sepsis are inappropriate. Secondly, I have just been deleting material that clearly fails WP:RS, such as http://electronicintifada.net and http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/.

Sepsis is misrepresenting his case that I deleted Jonathan Cook, Amnesty International, or Reporters Without Borders. In all those cases, it was sourced to the Electronic Intifada, which clearly fails WP:RS.

Ultimately, these issues should be dealt with on the relevant talk page or WP:RSN. WP:AE should not be flippantly abused to intimidate editors and canvass others of similar outlook, which happens far too often.

If in some way I have erred, please correct me, but http://electronicintifada.net is simply not an RS and has no place being used as a source for factual assertions on Wikipedia. Let's not turn this AE into the normal battleground sideshow. Thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sepsis has now added a nearly month old edit as #6. He's really out fishing. That edit was designed to correct the severe NPOV issues at Iran–United States relations and eliminate unreliable and self-published sources, such as www.zmag.org/, www.rawstory.com/, kucinich.house.gov, www.tomdispatch.com, mathaba.net, www.iranian.com/, www.globalresearch.ca, and fringe theories from Seymour Hersh. Again, this is an abuse of the AE system for a content dispute that should be handled on the respective talk page, dispute resolution board, or RSN. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Result concerning Plot Spoiler

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