Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Request concerning Littleolive oil: my explanation of the email, for context
Request concerning Littleolive oil: significant inaccuracies fixed
Line 84: Line 84:


@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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3ALittleolive+oil&timestamp=20080227180640 rev del], [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk:IRWolfie-|talk]]) 20:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@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: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=User%3ALittleolive+oil&timestamp=20080227180640 rev del], [[User:IRWolfie-|IRWolfie-]] ([[User talk: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 an internet archive site's version of olive's userpage. I told him that he probably should not, but as the page was merely deleted (as opposed to [[WP:OVERSIGHT|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). '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 21:00, 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 [[WP:OVERSIGHT|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). '''<font color="navy">[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 21:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Revision as of 21:12, 5 September 2013

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @Sandstein, perhaps you can clarify to Keithbob and Olive that Principles are not sanctions? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    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:

    I have nothing to defend myself against here. This concerns a content dispute which I had removed myself from noting as I did so novel interpretation of policy and that there was no progress. I have grave concerns about IRWolfie posting during a content dispute especially as he had been reprimanded by a uninvolved editor for a deep revert of the editor's stylistic changes, and I have concerns about IRWolie's behaviour across Wikipedia. Wolfie has been warned multiple times that the TM articles are under arbitration in part concerning peremptory deletion of content (olive (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    • 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))[reply]


    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:

    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][60]

    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 [61]
    • 4/5/13 At an unrelated AE thread [62] and on Olive's talk page, he makes allegations about her real life place of employment [63]
    • 4/15/13 Opened an ArbCom request for clarification with Olive and the John Hagelin article as it's focus [64]
    • 4/8/13 Wolfie is warned by Ched to stop harassing Olive [65]
    • 9/3/13 Wolfie files ArbCom request with Olive as the central figure [66]

    @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. [67] 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: [68] and [69]
    B) olive's reply: [70]
    C) Posted by me after my second attempt at clean up, per MOS and BLP: [71] and [72]
    D) Wolfie's first reply to me (see the edits below line 201): [73]
    E) Wolfie expands on reply: [74]
    F: My reaction: [75]
    David in DC (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]