As already explained on the the page of the last Cambridge wiki meetup, I am heavily involved in marking examinations and essays for Part III of the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos between Thursday 3 June and Monday 7 June, so probably will not be able to make detailed comments immediately. I apologize that real life has intervened like this.
For some time now a group of single purpose editors has acted in concert to add material to wikipedia articles overrepresenting the minority point of view that it is a proven scientific fact that the negroid (black) "race" has lower "general inteligence" on average than the caucasoid (white) "race" for genetic reasons connected with "race". The single purpose accounts include Captain Occam (talk·contribs), David.Kane (talk·contribs), Mikemikev (talk·contribs), Distributivejustice (talk·contribs), Varoon Arya (talk·contribs) and Victor Chmara (talk·contribs). Their editing involves tag teaming, to create a false consensus by force of numbers, WP:CPUSH, endlessly to prolong discussion of fairly minor points, as well as misinterpreting editing policy and forum shopping as described in more detail below
Editing patterns on race-related articles before, during and after attempted mediation
Before mediation.Race and intelligence and other race related articles on eugenics, dysgenics, etc, has for a long time attracted largely single purpose accounts that push the point of view that as a "race" African Americans or blacks are genetically inferior to whites. In the past thie article has attracted very extreme single purpose accounts, some of which have been banned from WP: fourdee (by Jimbo), MoritzB, Jagz (confirmed on appeal by ArbCom). The page was watched and locked for long periods of time by Moonriddengirl. At that stage I also watched the article, which I hardly edited except occasionally to add sources.
Mediation. After a period of calm, a new group of largely single purpose editors favouring this view has appeared on the article and appear to be editing in concert in that direction. On R&I, it amounts to the "hereditarian" explanation that the measured gap of 15 points in average IQ scores of self-identified population groups of American blacks and American whites has an inherently genetic cause due to race. After editing on the article came to an impasse in October 2009, Ramdrake suggested that mediation might be the only way forward and this started in November 2009 Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-11-12/Race_and_Intelligence/Archive_0 (improperly archived). The first volunteer mediator had only edited wikipedia for a few days and disappeared fairly soon. Xavexgeom then took over and a generally agreed strategy for restructuring the article was suggested by me, although I had to leave mediation due to a teaching wikibreak. Mediation then faltered. Xavexgeom was replaced by The Wordsmith, but it again faltered. During mediation new editors arrived, notably Mikemikev and Ludwigs2, an editor who has made a significant number of edits on wikipedia policy pages to favour fringe science. Ludwigs2 volunteered as 4th mediator in February 2009. With SPAs forming the majority of editors active by that stage in mediation, an unprecedented decision was taken to make the article "data driven", relying for the writing on primary sources, rather than secondary sources. Thus the stage was set for rewriting the article based on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. David.Kane, self-identified on wikipedia as a real life web activist, who appears to be opposed tp African American admission to elite colleges in the US (he is associated with Williams College), volunteered to rewrite the article from scratch directly in mainspace (as Ludwigs2 insisted). No discussions of explicit content had taken place during 5 months of mediation. After the imbalance of editors in mediation was brought to Xavexgeom's attention, a 2 week deadline was set. The resulting article was non neutral, unreadable and allowed the reader to form their own decision as to whether the "hereditarian" viewpoint might be correct or not. However, the hereditarian viewpoint is a minority point of view, not accepted by the mainstream and has been put forward by quite a small group of active researchers. This kind of non neutral writing is what users like David.Kane and Captain Occam apparently would like to have on WP: their userspaces contain examples User:Captain Occam/significance and
User:David.Kane/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? David.Kane's userspace also contains User:David.Kane/EphBlog, a deleted article where David.Kane brought his campaign against various individuals connected with Williams College onto wikipedia. It contained major BLP violations; the page has been mostly blanked by Professor marginalia.
Final stage of mediation: lede and history. Somewhat reluctantly, but with Xavexgeom's encouragement, I involved myself in the very final stages of this failed mediation process. My view is that it is impossible to discuss the content of an article without actually writing that content: because no content had been discussed, that is why mediation had gone nowhere. I suggested a new neutral lede, written from scratch, to help move the article into a neutral form. After a slight tweaking this became the current lede. The inaccurate implication that this is a major area of academic research was removed and it was made clear that on the contrary the small amount of research in the subject is from the heriditarian viewpoint and is mostly not funded by mainstream funding agencies. I then started to propose a rewrite for the very short history section, having noted Varoon Arya's removal of all criticism from two related articles Snyderman and Rothman (study) and Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Unlike the "science" recently involved in race and intelligence, which has been heavily criticized for being methodologically flawed and based on unscientific folk notions of race and heredity, the history is extremely well documented in multiple university-level textbooks on the history of psychology. However, it also became apparent that the topic of race and intelligence had been discussed not only in the United States but also in Germany from the 1920s onwards, in the now-abandoned academic subject called Rassenhygiene. At that stage many psychologists in the US and elsewhere, including Germany, discussed eugenic solutions to the problems they considered to be due to racial differences, also with a view to eugenic solutions; only in Germany were these academic ideas taken to their "logical" conclusion.
History article. After the war, psychologists largely switched to a more environmental point of view, following the lead of Franz Boas and his school. Segregationist psychologists like Henry Garrett opposed this "Boas cult", which they viewed as a Jewish Marxist conspiracy.
The current hereditarian point of view springs from the 1960s work of Arthur Jensen, already at that time an established educational psychologist at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1969, in what is usually labelled in undergraduate textbooks as one of the most controversial papers in the history of psychology, Jensen spelt out his speculations and worries about the future of the average IQ score in the US, pointing out that it seemed likely in his view that the racial IQ gap could only be explained by a genetic difference between the races. He suggested two kinds of learning ability, Level I (associative, rote) and Level II (conceptual, abstract), the latter being what intelligence actually measured. He suggested that attempts to bridge this gap by compensatory education could not work once this kind of genetic difference in intelligence had been acknowledged: a better strategy was to teach those with low Level II abilities by Level I methods, i.e. more rote learning. Moreover to answer the demands for more technologically skilled workers during a decline in the average US intelligence, Jensen suggested, since these averages were determined by the relative size of different population groups, probabl the omly way to improve matters was by "eugenic foresight". Jensen's article was speculative, quickly written and perhaps not well judged for the volatile climate of the late 1960s. It generated a huge controversy in the media, in the public, amongst academics, from professional academic bodies and amongst militant student protest groups. This is recorded in History of the race and intelligence controversy, the article suggested by Slrubenstein when the history material for the R&I article, added period by period on the talk page, became too long. It is now 82,000 bytes long and was fairly well illustrated until an IP started blanking images against consensus. The page was then locked after a request for page protection against IPs.
Focussing in on Jensen. Irrespective of his political leanings, Jensen has been taken as an academic point of reference by far right groups: David Duke describes Jensen as one of his "scientific heroes"; and one of his collaborators, J. Phillipe Rushton, president of the controversial Pioneer Fund, has spoken in white supremacist conferences on the same platform as Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party. The SPAs have objected to various short summaries of the 1969 article, largely taken from textbooks by historians of psychology: Benjamin, Wooldridge and Tucker. First they objected to the comment that the paper of Jensen had been criticized in peer reviewed journals by academics like Christopher Jencks because of possible miscalculations of heritability cefficients. The material was removed on the grounds that 4 pages of summary of these criticisms (which fill many books and papers) were not sufficent to warrant a mention in the wikipedia article. That material is still not discussed in detail. At that stage the group of SPAs descended en masse on the article to push various other points of view. Since I was the only non SPA editing the article, I appealed for help on ANI. That resulted in non SPA editors starting to edit the article. Xxanthippe added an "expert needed" tag to the article and made unsubstaniated claims about the article, but with no detail whatsoever. Slimvirigin mildly changed some of the phrasing of a summary paraphrased from Tucker's book that Jensen had suggested 2 solutions - rote learning and some possible kind of eugenic control - and removed the expert tag. The SPAs did not like this short summary and for the past 5 weeks have tried every conceivable device to remove statements of this kind. Next the SPAs proposed replacing some of the secondary sources by accounts due to Jensen himself or other colleagues in hereditarian research. One or two sentences from that material remain. Varoon Arya claimed that the article did not properly represent Jensen's critics as Marxists. Content was later added from secondary sources that Jensen and his colleagues reiterated Garrett's claims of a conspiracy to silence the hedetitarian point of view through the "equalitarian dogma" of Marxism/neo-Lysenkoism. Going one step further on ANI and now here, Mikemikev and Xxanthippe have claimed that I myself have a Marxist POV: they have not explained how they reached this extraordinary conclusion. The SPAs then created a pro-Jensen POV-fork which was deleted quite soon. WP:Articles for deletion/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?
Removal of content on Jensen's academic work in 1969-1973 as BLP violations. I added a lot more neutral material on the three periods in the history avoiding articles written by those heavily involved in the controversy (Jensen, Pioneer grantees, Stephen J. Gould, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin, etc) using new secondary sources. Because they were referred to in the history article, Mainstream Science on Intelligence and
Snyderman and Rothman (study) were rewritten from a neutral point of view. SPAs objected to the published comment by former president of the American Psychological AssociationDonald T. Campbell that Jensen had made a statment about policy in promoting rote learning. They also claimed incorrectly that various other statements by Jensen had been misquoted and were not about "American Negroes". In a final disruptive twist, David.Kane, Captain Occam and Mikemikev challenged old material in the history article with which they had formerly agreed. This time any material from a secondary source that mentioned certain parts of Jensen's arguments from the 1969 article (or the series of books writtenshortly afterwards) was blanked as a BLP violation. This material included statements that Jensen had encouraged rote learning methods for those with low intelligence and had mentioned eugenic methods to solve the national IQ problem. It has been written in many textbooks on psychology and education, by academic authors with no link wahtsoever to Jensen. These are academic commentators in textbooks published by major academic publishers (for example Joan Freeman's book on gifted education published by Springer Verlag). This particular round of disruption took place on multiple noticeboards, and might have included writing email messages misrepresenting this material and some editors to Jimbo Wales. Varoon Arya even started commenting on a very complicated table I was preparing for Orgelbüchlein, which even now I have not proofread, claiming that my sources were suspect and that the well-established naming conventions of List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function were invalid. (Varoon Arya's continued claims about naming conventions in Bach's liturgical music seem uninformed and slightly nationalistic - why mention "Anglo-American"? One of the world's leading Bach scholars, the German Christoph Wolff, writing in English, uses exactly the same naming conventions as wikipedia.[1]) This seems to have been part of a coordinated campaign to chase away a neutral editor. Rvcx, an editor with not much experience outside articles like Larry Sanger and a volunteer on WP:BLPN, became unwittingly involved; and quick to move from one forum to another, even after apologies, escalated this request to ArbCom, without apparently a very clear idea of any background on race-related articles or prior discussions on noticeboards.
SPAs impede constructive progress. Progress on Race and intelligence is at an impasse. Captain Occam has suggested the significance section mentioned above, but it is an essay, which fails on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE and the use of primary sources. As a futher step in improving the article, I neutralised the next section under the heading "Current debate". Non SPA editors, like Maunus, seemed to like the rewrite. At the moment I see no prospect of any progress with David.Kane, Mikemikev, and Captain Occam still editing. Of the three, Mikemikev edits least although his edits are the most problematic as Maunus points out. David.Kane and Captain Occam seem to be involved in campaigns which have nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia. Captain Occam often asks other SPAs for "help" and there does seem some idea thatWP:CPUSH will make neutral editors "run out of steam".[2]
Sections of Race and intelligence are being written as an essay Captain Occam continues to edit war, removing the suggested comments of others [3] while adding his personal essay User:Captain Occam/significance that has been rejected on the talk page for over three weeks.[4] The essay is pure synthesis from primary sources, POV-pushing and represents the views of only a small minority. Captain Occam has been told repeatedly by multiple editors that this material is illogical and original research, confusing correlation with cause. I think it is extremely ill-judged and disruptive of Captain Occam to add biased highly problematic material of this nature in the run up to an ArbCom case. Perfectly good secondary sources exist on this material, for example, Magnuson, Katherine A.; Waldfogel, Jane (2008), Steady gains and stalled progress: inequality and the black-white test score gap, Russell Sage Foundation, ISBN0871545675
and none of these have been consulted. Members of ArbCom might note the irony of Captain Occam writing a section on policy including policy suggestions of Jensen; in another article David.Kane and Captain Occam removed published statements that Jensen had made policy suggestions, the specific point that Donald T. Campbell was making.
Issues to be clarified. Although I agree with most of Maunus' analysis, I obviously wouldn't agree that I have been removing properly sourced content, if he's suggesting that, and I wouldn't agree that I have been edit warring (in adding seven or eight different short summaries of Jensen's article from as many reliable secondary sources). I do believe that SPAs have been acting in concert in the latest BLP round of disruption to create an impossible editing environment on wikipedia: they refuse even to begin to discuss secondary sources, claiming that if they don't like the material the author is evidentally a malicious critic maligning Arthur Jensen. This absurd and childish claim by a tag team of editors is something of a last straw. When editors, involved in heated off-wiki disputes and activism bring their WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit to wikipedia - albeit very politely phrased, but nevertheless determined by sheer persistence to win the argument by whichever method works - this means that wikipedia editing policies are sacrificed. If David.Kane's attempts to invoke BLP policy were valid, any statement about a particular living individual's academic work appearing in a peer-reviewed published book or academic article could be removed as a claimed BLP violation written by a malicious critic. This is one of the worst abuses of policy I have seen on wikipedia. Jimbo Wales has not yet clarified that this was not the intended interpretation of his remarks. In all of this it is important to remember that editors are not either herditarian or environmentalist, pro-Jensen or ant-Jensen, Marxist/Left Wing or ... There are some of us left who are neutral and just edit articles like Auguste Pavie as another pastime like sudoku. (ArbCom will recognize User:PHG as one of the other editors.) Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Count Iblis
Just like the climate change case, this case shows that it is high time that ArbCom imposes new rules for editing articles that make scientific statements. I.e. we need to move toward SPOV. The way things stand now makes it possible for people with fringe views to come to Wikipedia and edit their fringe views in these sort of articles. They can defend themselves quite well using the existing rules, although they will at some point exhaust the patience of the other editors by behave in tendentious ways. This means that a lot of tentions has to be built up before something can and is done. With better rules, this sort of situation can be prevented once and for all. Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Beyond My Ken
I am unsure what the standard for "involvement" is here. I have never edited the articles in question, and my participation is limited to commentary on AN/I. Stongly-phrased commentary, to be sure, but mere commentary nonetheless. I suggest that if this case goes forward, the list of "involved" editors needs considerable adjusting, per the comments of Mathsci above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are issues to be resolved, they are: how does Wikipedia deal with civil POV-pushing in general, SPAs with political and ideological goals, and tag-team editing, and how do we transition to adopting a Scientifiic Point of View standard for appropriate articles? The procedures in place to deal with the former are not well-suited to keeping them in check, and the latter is a necessity to maintain Wikipedia's objectivity, reputation, usefullness and accuracy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The objection is raised below that adopting the Scientific Point of View (SPOV) would be to give special treatment to a specific viewpoint, contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental principals, but this turns out not to be the case. A SPOV-standard for science-based articles would merely assist in determining what the Neutral Point of View is for that subject. As WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE recognize, one doesn't arrive at the NPOV by throwing every conceivable viewpoint into an article and letting it stand, such a methodology would make Wikipedia entirely useless as a reference work. Judgment and balance, and community consensus, are required to find what the mainstream viewpoint is and start from that place as the "zero" point. Adopting SPOV would allow that mainstream to be determined in the context of the mainstream of the scientific community. SPOV is, in fact, consonant with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, among other Wikipedia policies.
Contrary to another claim made below, if SPOV had been in place the current case would not have been brought, as the editing of the SPAs and civil POV pushers does not represent the scientific mainstream. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a bit too much emphasis in these discussion on the SPA aspect of this -- and I'm as guilty of that as others. Really, it's not so much about single-purpose accounts as it is about civil POV-pushing and tag team editing to advance what is undeniably a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. In this case, many of the civil POV-pushing tag-teamers happen to be SPAs, so it's easy to see their single-mindedness from their contributions, but there are others whose contributions have been more general in nature overall, who are still guilty of pushing a viewpoint that is outside the scientific mainstream. The fact that these editors are not SPAs is not particularly relevant in the face of the evidence that they work in consort with SPAs and others to shape Wikipedia articles in a way that is not representative of mainstream thought, which does our readers a disservice, and hurts the project's reputation for impartiality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The community is not finished here. We don't have to stop all discussion because someone has asked for a case, and it won't be the first time that there is concurrent discussion and that a case request is closed because the community has made some action that solved the situation.
Also, it was finally starting to dawn on people that SPAs should be topic-banned, it's not good to cut the discussion just when it was finally starting to get traction. I have re-opened the ANI thread with specific ban proposals. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
Removed this bit; point taken Nyb; there are a number of consequences, but that wasn't the one I was concerned by. 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Disclosure about uninvolvement, if necessary.
A suggestion was raised, perhaps unintentionally, that I am otherwise involved in this dispute. I (predictably) reject that assertion, but would disclose the following which might have been responsible for the misunderstanding.
I made the following edits to the BLP noticeboard [5][6][7] which today I found out were subsequently mischaracterised/misinterpreted by Captain Occam [8] - in reality, I had not made a view on the dispute other than that there was an ongoing edit war. In addition to the diffs I jst provided, I also stopped the edit-war (see: edit war between involved editors 1234567 and then my edit followed by end of edit war with accompanying talk here). Notably, I have responded to ANI and WQA threads urging and cautioning editors to fix their approach with respect to noticeable issues, and had recommended that arbitration be taken to address all parties conduct issues (but this suggestion was not welcomed at the time by most users who were involved).
To conclude, my input has purely been as an uninvolved user and this has not changed - if any user, involved or otherwise, wishes to suggest that I have been involved in the topic, they are requested to raise their concerns with me - though they will probably be encouraged to provide proof to that effect also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pure reason that the community was unable to intervene with a long term solution was because it is not confident that it can deal with the dispute effectively, fairly, and consistently. We can overlook a lot of issues when an editor encounters problem editing, and deal with it, but there is only so much we can do when an editor becomes obstinate and goes too far up the path that they forgot that the rest of Wikipedia is not a battleground (ideally, that topic/area shouldn't be considered as such either). This is problematic when established and experienced editors in other disputes have demonstrated that they can effectively deal with POV-pushing without letting their conduct go that far out of control. In other words, the awful core problem of tendentious problem editing by the POV-pushers needs to be addressed, but at the same time, the conduct of all parties needs to be looked at - mitigating circumstances need to be considered carefully; they are mitigating rather than total immunity. Failing to make that distinction would be counterproductive, particularly if the community is to be able to deal with this type of problem without being compelled to move it here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by uninvolved Collect
Again the proposition that somehow WP should establish a special point of view which would be given preferential treatment is raised. This is contrary, however, to the fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. No point of view should be given special treatment. Collect (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time this matter has been taken to ArbCom, nor is it the last. It is true that the matter is brought forward is involving a variety of issues, including CIV and BLP concerns. I know ArbCom generally prefers to decide matters on a narrow range of policy-based facts. My own view is that CIV and BLP here are red-herrings, and the accusations made against MathSci are generally made by people whose views are supported by neither policy nor sources and thus have no recourse but to disruptive editing (which is not to say that MathSci bends over backwards to be charming; it is only to say that he bends over backwards to add well-researched and sourced content to articles). I think the conflicts that bedevil these articles are really over content.
I do not think members of ArbCom cannot understand why these articles are such a constant source of impassioned controversy without knowing the content issue that is at its core. I think making this clear to you is the only service I can provide the committee.
In a 1969 Higher Education Review article Arthur Jenson wrote:
"So all we are left with are various lines of evidence, no one of which is definitive alone, but which, viewed all together, make it a not unreasonable hypothesis that genetic factors are strongly implicated in the average Negro-white intelligence difference."
In his 1973 book, Educability and Group Differences, page 373 Jensen wrote:
"something between one-half and three-fourths of the average IQ differences between American Negroes and whites is attributable to genetic differences"
Now, here is how many (not all!) people interpret the above two sentences:
On average, Blacks score lower IQs than Whites.
In other words, intellectually, at least, Blacks are inferior to Whites
Most of this inferiority is genetic (biologically innate)
Therefore (according to Jensen) it is natural that Blacks are inferior to Whites.
As you might imagine, many (not all) of the people who interpret Jensen this way reach the conclusion that Jensen is a racist. Jensen is not the first person to claim that some races are naturally inferior to others; he is not even the first scientist to make this claim.
But I think Jensen is especially controversial because he backs up his arguments with IQ tests, and it should surprise nobody that most people, especially high-achieving people, give a lot of credibility to IQ testing (and do not like the idea of the credibility of SAT or IQ tests being challenged). At the same time, there are many people in diverse social science fields who have been critical of Jensen's methods and conclusions. A few other well-known scholars have published research supporting these views or extending the argument (Rushton, Lynn, Murray) - they are published in peer-reviewed journals, but there are many other well-respected social scientists and life scientists who consider their work, or much of it, fringe science.
MathSci has devoted himself to adding content on this controversy to a few articles. In my experience he always provides a source. Virtually all the conflict at these articles occurs when one of a small number of other editors deletes MathSci's edits. As a rule, if MathSci thinks that a properly sourced edit was deleted, he reverts. Judge for yourself but I think you will see this pattern if you look at his edits closely.
What follows is my personal view and it is speculative: As to those who revert him (usually, Captain Occam, David Kane and Mikemikev but there have been others), I do NOT believe that they are racists who wish to use Wikipedia to promote racist views, although I think this is an inevitable consequence of some of their edits. I think these are editors who have a high regard for psychology and psychometrics (Jensen's field) and a strong antipathy to other social sciences, especially sociology and anthropology. I believe this because most of the scholars who criticize Jensen, Rushton and Lynn on scientific grounds come from these fields. By favoring psychology over sociology and anthropology, we are left with a strong bias towards a genetic rather than social or cultural explanation for the inferiority of Blacks. I am going out on a limb here, but consciously, at least, I think the problem is not that they favor Whites over Blacks but that they favor biological explanations over sociological ones. Frankly, I thought we had largely resolved this particular conflict during mediation. But the recent BLP ploy (and I am convinced it is a ploy) reveals their anxieties that careful scrutiny of Jensen reveal that he and his advocates are or may be racists.
I do not think that the suggestion made by one editor, that Wikipedia assume a "scientific point of view," will help in this case because some people consider Jensen a respectable scientists, and some consider him a fringe scientists, and some consider him a respectable scholar who is nevertheless a racist. What we need is a larger group of people with more diverse experience in the social and life scientists who can ensure that he best sources are being used and that all significant views are presented in context. But even if we had that the two sentences I quote above, and the common interpretation of them, is still something that will upset some editors.
Well, this is pretty much all I have to say. It will be impossible to provide an accurate account of Jensen's views without leaving open to readers the interpretation that he is a racist. And there are many reliable secondary sources that support this view. So even if we apply BLP's criteria as severely as possible, this view of him will come out. No, I do not think there is any quote of him saying "I am a racist." But there are the two quotes above and if YOU do not think they make Jensen a racist, trust me, for many others, they do.
I believe it is knowledge of this that motivates partisans of Jensen to edit war against MathSci and to go to BLP.
I agree that when BLP is an issue we must be exceptionally careful about using a preponderance of the best sources to support claims in our articles. But there is no going around it: any article on Jensen will have to provide the two quotes I provided above, or paraphrases of them, as well as the views of secondary sources, that the view that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites is racist. I see no way around it. I also understand why those editors of Wikipedia who do not want to see Wikipedia used to publicize racist views care very much about the outcome of any conflict concerning this and related articles.
These are the basic facts and if they are not addressed squarely and conclusively, there will always be conflict. The problem: ArbCom can only intervene in behavioral policy violations, and it is not for us to decide who in a scientific debate is right, so how can we ever possibly address the core issue squarely and conclusively? Maybe we cannot, and this issue will keep returning to you for attention. Please just remember the issue that is always at the heart of any such conflict: the two lines of Jensen I quoted and the interpretation, held by many (and found in verifiable sources), that to say Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites is racist. Slrubenstein | Talk22:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Captain, I thought I was clear that this is an inference people make. As to Jensen's own protestations, well, again, it is a matter of interpretation. I think many people take him at his word which is one reason why he is, in general, given more credence than Rushton or Lynn. Others do not. This is because many racists deny being racist. This fact does not make Jensen racist, but it explains why some people do not give a lot of weight to his own assertions. My larger point is that
the fact remains that Jensen has written things that many people interpret as racist.
NPOV demands that these words of Jensen be included in relevant articles, and that the interpretation that they are racist, when it comes from a significant and reliable source, must also be included.
And these articles will therefore always be highly controversial because:
some people object to presenting racist views in articles on scientific topics, and
other people object to calling Jensen a racist
And I think this is the core of the problem. I think we could replace you, me, MathSci, Mikemikev, all of us, with a dozen new editors and it will become highly contentious because Wikipedia does not know how to satisfactorally manage this kind of conflict, where a view that some people hold to be racist is presented by others as a significant scientific point of view.Slrubenstein | Talk11:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the comment below was refactored from from my section, per the no discussion rules of this page, without prejudice. I will respond in my section. --Ludwigs214:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs, what I believe is missing from your account is the fact that I was often exhausted by what I saw as tag-team POV-pushing by Captain Occam, Mikemikev, and others, leading me to avoid the mediation pages for stretches of time. I have no idea what there reasons were, but I note that Muntuwandi and Aprock, other editors you identify as reasonable, also often dropped off of the mediation page for long stretches of time. Muntuwandi's concerns and suggestions were almost always ignored by Captain Occam, Mikemikev, and others (if not actively disparaged) so I wonder whether he too felt the same fatigue I did. In fact, many of the editors who were named as parties in the mediation stopped participating. There could be many reasons, although frustration or disappointment with your mediation style is one plausible possibility; I think frustration with Captain Occam, mikemikev and others' dismissal of a lot of social science research, or lumping all opponents to Jensen, rushton, and Lynn, as "environmentalists," is a more likely reason. All of this is salient because it helps explain why MathSci has become such a target of hatred by proponents of Rushton and Lynn: when their attempts to drive editors like me away through exhaustion seemed to be working, MathSci jumped in and refused to back down. You distinguish between me and him by saying I was reasonable and he was not, but I support virtually all of his edits. What you identify as "reasonableness" on my part was really as sign of my own exhaustion in having to raise the same objections time and time again, and defend the same claims, claims either taken for granted or explicitly held by most social scientists, time and time again. The main difference between me (and perhaps other editors you identify as "reasonable") and MathSci is that when I got tired of going in circles and avoided the page, MathSci did research, found reliable secondary sources, and put the material in the draft - and refused to let Captain occam or mikemikev delete content that was fully compliant with our policies, was encyclopedic, attributed, and verified. I do not expect you to change your mind about mathSci but please do not hold me up as an example of the "good" environmentalist. I am no better than MathSci; our motives are the same in that we wish the article to reflect all major scholarly viewpoints proportionately. The only difference is, he has more stamina than I. Slrubenstein | Talk11:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been involved in the mediation from the start, and fully endorse Maunus's report of Mikemikev's behavior. The above statement by Mikemikev nicely illustrates his contempt for Wikipedia policy in his attempt to disrupt any progress working on an article. SYNTH only applies when an editor does it. Synthetic statements found in secondary sources are permitted. In fact, we are encouraged to go to secondary sources for synthetic statements. BLP also applies to Wikipedians, not their sources. An article violates BLP when it asserts defamatory views about a person that are not found in notable, reliable, verifiable sources. BLP demands that we only add controversial claims about a living person when they are fully supported by secondary sources. Now, in both cases mathSci has carefully complied with policy. But for two weeks he, I and others have had to cease working on articles because Mikemikev deletes work that is fully compliant with policies. We have even explained to him why and how MathSci's edits comply with policies. And now we are in arbitration, and MathSci is painted as the villain. If this ArbCom case is simply about the BLP accusation, Mikemikev's statement should be sufficinet grounds for dismissing the case and topic-banning Mikemikev. Slrubenstein | Talk11:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In claiming to contrast inefective and effective editing strategies, David Kane is being a little disingenuous. He is really just contrasting MathSci's editing style to ... David Kane's editing style. In my view, David Kane has produced a good deal of content that violates SYNTH and misrepresents sources, and is the real cause of contention and conflict among editors. As a general principle, it is simply a means to put one person in control of editing a page, which is a violation of the very spirit of the wikipedia. For what it is worth, I think Aprock's, Muntuwandi's, and Maunus's statements are the most constructive. Ramdrake hands-down provides the best overall account of the situation (including his reply to Victor C.) Slrubenstein | Talk08:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment by Bpesta
I am not saying that the claims are inherently racist. I have simply pointed out that the claims have lead to an argument, with some people inferring that Jensent et. al are racists, and others saying that they are not, and that this is a kind of conflict Wikipedia is not good at handling. I stand by that.
Your own statement suggests that there is no evidence to support an environmental explanation. You also state that there is no evidence for a genetic explanation, yet you seen to favor it. This is an example of something some major scholars have commented on, namely, that many in our socity are biased to favor biological over sociological explanations (a point Lewontin made in Biology as Ideology). This is not the same thing as claiming someone is a racist, but it is a point that many editors reject out of hand as being "anti-science" even though it is made by established and credible scientists. Again, my point is that there are some kinds of debates in reliable sources that Wikipedia has for whatver reason consistently found difficult to handle, and I think that this is another reason why conflict and controversy linger over the R&I article evn when the editors working on it change.
Antepenultimately, on a more personal note, I point out that the bias towards biological over sociological explanations has real-world policy consequences: Jensen himself has advocated eugenics, and others have used his arguments to argue against the renewal of programs like "Head Start" in the US. These policies are or would be targeted at different races in different ways, which is another reason why people out in the real world raise the question of racist science.
Finally, and to try to restate my point again: I am not denying your arguments that it is not racist; in fact, your arguments are necessary for there to be a controversy, a conflict (in the real world); controversies require at least two sides each of which believes they have good reasons for being convinced they are right. My point is that this particular kind of controversy (which is almost inevitable when "science" and "race" come together) should be treated like any other conflict, following our NPOV, V, and NOR policies, and yet we editors keep failing to find the appropriate way to write about it. My view is that the weight an encyclopedia, necessarily gives to "science" is clashing with something that the Wiki community ought not to tolerate, namely "racism," and we just do not know how to handle this appropriately. If you read what I have written in this paragraph carefully, you should conclude that I am not taking sides. If you or anyone reading this paragraph believes I am taking a side, I would consider that further evidence of our inability to face this editing challenge squarely. Slrubenstein | Talk10:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
The community is not incapable of acting here. Several admins have been waiting to see if it could be resolved without force majeure, within the community. I believe that it's approaching "exhausted community patience".
A key problem is balance - both sides are misbehaving, can an admin fiat decision be seen a sufficiently impartial and neutral.
If arbcom choses not to act, others will. It may be smoother for the community if it's a well discussed Arbcom case - or perhaps not. The case might just escalate as badly as the ANI discussions have, etc.
What we have here is a situation where a bunch of single-purpose editors with a singular viewpoint are dominating articles on Race and have been doing so for quite sometime. This is unhealthy for a variety of reasons. First, and this is bad from the viewpoint of creating a balanced encyclopedia, it leads to articles on race being skewed in one direction. Second, and this is bad because it affects the way we edit articles, because these editors are single-purpose and with a singular view, they tend to view wikipedia as a us vs. them battleground. Something needs to be done with these editors for the good of the encyclopedia.
I am finishing up a week of travel and note that this is likely to be accepted so I'll restrict myself to this brief statement for the time being. However, I do intend to make a longer statement, properly researched of course, if this case is accepted. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I am uncertain whether I am involved or uninvolved. Though I have looked up a couple of references - two to be exact - as a sort of sanity check, I consider myself uninvolved and agnostic on the content issues in this dispute. However, and I have repeatedly stated this, I believe that allowing these SPAs to continue to edit on any topic in Category Race is a bad idea and so I do have a specific outcome that I would like to see from this case.--RegentsPark (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Captain Occam blocked, and conditionally unblocked to allow participation here
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The article Race and intelligence is a good example of a segmented article title, a term can be used to describe a form of alternative article name where two topics are combined to form a new one. Segmented article titles have the effect that they:
result in the creation of an article topic in which undue weight may be given to specific sub-topics of the articles Race and Intelligence that would not be given such prominence within those articles;
narrow the scope of coverage that is relevant to the two topics, and potentially results in a biased point of view being promoted;
lack a sourced definition, or any related coverage about the meaning or origin of the title. For instance, it is acknowledged that "There are no universally accepted definitions of either race or intelligence in academia", and probably because there is no causal relationship betweeen the two topics (merely speculation), there is no definition of "Race and intelligence" cited in this article either.
The problem with using titles like "Race and intelligence" is that there is little (if any) coverage to define the article's subject matter or scope, as it contains little coverage that addresses the articles subject matter directly and in detail; rather the article contains lots of detail from studies of race or intelligence from which any number of relationships between the two topics can be infered.
With all due respect to the article's contributers, it seems to be that the implicit bias of this article is its focus on the alleged existence of an IQ gap between African Americans and White Americans. If this article had been focused on differences on the alleged existence of an IQ gap between, say, Jews and Chinese or English and Irish (or their half English/half Irish variants), this article would be derided and deleted in an instant. The coverage on alleged national or ethnic IQ gaps should be removed, and consigned to articles whose subject matter is notable topics about IQ studies of these groups, rather than being brought together in article whose scope is currently based on a Category mistake.
The objective of any mediation or arbitartion case should be to eliminate all coverage that is vaguely related to the title, and focus on that which actually address the article topic directly and in detail, and will thereby provide details of its scope and definition of its subject matter. Since alleged existence of an IQ gap between African American and White Americans is not supported by any scientific laws, and there is lack the causal scientific evidence, I recomend that this article be purged of these Fringe theories. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)12:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is your suggestion to delete the article entirely? One of the arbitrators seems to think you mean that the article should hive off more subarticles, but that is not what you are suggesting, right? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in this arbitration, but I wish to comment on this statement. This comment from Gavin Collins is part of an attempt to change our WP:Article titles policy to rule out what he considers to be "made up topics". In this case, he would consider "Race and intelligence" to be an improper synthesis of "Race" and "Intelligence"; he argues that this title is a clear indication that the article topic is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. His proposal to change policy in this manner did not succeed. Fences&Windows13:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if it had succeeded, there would be no need for this arbitration case, nor the many similar cases that will surely come and waste even more admin time. The case itself, the disputes about content, scope and the controversies about its sourcing are all symptomatic of there something being fundamentally wrong with the topic itself. Even if you are right, and the article title has nothing to do with these problems, then why is this article a battleground, when the articles on Race and Intelligence are sleepy editorial backwaters by comparison with this one? The trite answer would be that it is a controversial subject matter, but one has to ask why it is controversial. If you make the effort in your own mind to deconstruct the meaning and origin of this article's title, you will see all the controversy surrounding this topic is attributable to the causes I have set out above. This is a classic example of a segmented article title being used to disguise an essay theme. Once you cross that bridge, a whole new vista of clarity and comprehension will open up to you, and the actions need to resolve this case will become abundantly apparent. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs)19:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is currently a meta discussion on Talk:Race_(classification_of_humans) amongst the affected users listed above about whether or not User:Captain Occam's topic ban includes that page or not [13]. The findings of fact indicate: Of the 306 edits made to date to his ten most-edited articles, only 17 (6%) do not relate to race and intelligence[14]. When the tool server stats are consulted, the implication is that "race" and "intelligence" articles are being considered here [15] (the non R/I articles seem to be William Beebe and Marquand Park).
Given the fact that there seems to be some confusion about what the scope of articles covered by the remedy: "8) Captain Occam (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed." [16], I would like to request a clarification of what articles are covered. (Note, I'm not sure of the best way to handle this request, so if this is premature I apologize and request guidance.) aprock (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank aprock for his notification of this clarification request. Yes, I too am interested in the scope of the topic ban under the Race and intelligence Arbitration Committee case, because I have already asked, with a helpful response from arbitrator Carcharoth, how the community might help make editors aware that some articles are within the scope of the discretionary sanctions to be adopted in the soon final decision of that case. I have already written a template for article talk pages and a template to remind editors, inviting comments about and edits to those templates from more experienced editors, so that all members of the community will have notice of the ArbCom decision and its topic scope. I have given the individual findings of fact on editor conduct in the ArbCom case a close reading to determine which articles are subject to the topic ban, but at least one editor who is about to be banned seems to read the topic restriction more narrowly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Vecrumba
Given that there is contention regarding the role and nature of race (societal, biological, genomic) and that there is still debate as to what degree "race" as a societal concept is mirrored in real genetics, any race related topic dealing with concepts of, evolution, biology, heritability, etc. could be considered as being in scope. I would request that for the editors subject to the topic ban, that clear (and "single voice of ArbCom") guidance be given regarding specific articles in and out of scope of the topic ban at the case mentioned. Editors should not find themselves in the position of interpreting a topic ban, interpreting ArbCom discussions as to scope of ban, or be potentially subjected to, for example (unfortunately), harassing policing by their editorial opposition where there is a difference of opinion on scope of ban. A prompt and clear response will go a long way toward calming the subject matter area. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK21:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To some of the commentary subsequently, I would respectfully request that we stick to the request for clarification, not relitigate R&I in the light of other articles. Either "Race (classification of humans)", for example, is in scope (that is, with respect to all sanctioned editors, so individual editors conduct at any impacted article is immaterial), or it is not. Plain and simple. A single:
This article falls under the "Race and intelligence" topic ban of (DATE), widely construed. Participating editors are reminded not to contact topic banned editors regarding this article as such contact can be taken as baiting editors to violate their topic ban. Thank you for everyone's cooperation.
First, at Race and Intelligence, Captain Ocaam, David kane and Mikemikev generally pushed two views: that average diferences in IQ according to race have or likely have a genetic basis, and that races are biologically real (or natural divisions among humans). The first claim was relevant to some other articles, like Heritability of IQ whereas the second claim was relevant to different articles, especially Race. Captain Occam's first edit at Race this year was specifically concerning "race and IQ" [17] so it is pretty clear to me that his interest in this article is tied to his interested in the Race and IQ article.
Second, it is my opinion that Mikemikev, David Kane and Captain Occam only began editing the Race article because of the way the conflict at R&I heated up. In other words, they went to Race not only to push the same POV as they were pushing at R&I, but also to change a WP article so that it would support the edits they were making at R&I.
There is a suggestion that the evidence submitted to Arbcom only pertained to race and intelligence article. The first diff in this section of my evidence submission is linked to the Race and genetics article. In summary, I have always taken for granted that this current controversy is spread over a number of related articles including Race (classification of humans) and Race and genetics.
Finally I would like to seek clarification on the Meatpuppetry. Would it be necessary to file a completely new request or can this be handled in this case. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Captain Occam
Since Cool Hand Luke is commenting here, I’m assuming that it’s acceptable for this to be discussed here when the case isn’t closed yet, so I’m going to offer my statement about it now.
I need to make it clear that I have no intention to actually continue editing the Race (classification of humans) article, and I’ve stated this several times on the talk page for that article. The reason Aprock, Slrubenstein and Muntuwandi have been asking about this here is because I also stated on this article’s talk page that I consider my decision to stay out of this article a voluntary one, so I did not think it should be necessary for me to promise to never edit this article for the duration of my topic ban. But apparently, my statement that I would be voluntarily staying out of this article was unacceptable enough to them that they needed to bring this up here.
However, I do intend to eventually create an article about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. And this has nothing to do with my interest in race—I consider this a politics topic, and it’s the only recent political controversy in the United States that does not yet have its own article here. In this thread on the proposed decision talk page, I asked the arbitrators whether my topic ban extended to this article, and all three of the arbitrators who expressed an opinion there (Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, and Carcharoth) stated that in their opinion it did not. Rlevese and Carcharoth both also explained why in their opinion it did not:
[18]: Without reading the findings, especially the ones one locus, and case history, one could read it as being about "race and intelligence" or "race" and "intelligence". But if you read the findings on locus and case history, they clearly center on "race and intelligence". The proposed article by Captain Occam seems, from what I can tell to lack the "intelligence" aspect as it's about voting.
[19]: The locus findings make clear this case is narrowly about race and intelligence (the category is linked there). One of the reasons the locus is so narrow is because the editors in question had a very narrow focus and the further questions arise because these editors are expanding this focus. I did propose a remedy that was purely race-related, see remedy 4, but that failed to pass.
This seems reasonable to me. Although my involvement in other race-related articles was brought up in order to show the focus of my editing over the past year, the locus of dispute makes it clear that this arbitration case was specifically about articles in this category, and I don’t think there’s any evidence that I’ve caused disruption outside of this category. For example, I’ve only made a single edit to the Race (classification of humans) article in the past three months, and have only edited it a total of 11 times in all the time I’ve been active on Wikipedia. Contrary to Slrubenstein’s statement, the arbcom ruling about me also does not state that I’ve engaged in POV-pushing on these articles—I’m being sanctioned for edit warring and false claims of consensus, and the finding of fact about me does not mention POV-pushing at all. For these reasons, as well as the reasons given by Rlevse and Carcharoth that I quoted, I don’t think my topic ban should be extended beyond the locus of dispute for this case.
As I said, my ability to edit the Race (classification of humans) article is not important to me, but I would definitely consider it a loss if I were disallowed from editing any article that mentions race or IQ, the vast majority of which are far beyond the topic area where I’ve caused any disruption. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I’d also like to add that in order to avoid similar requests for clarification being necessary in the future, it would be helpful if ArbCom could come up with a clearly-defined boundary for my (and David.Kane’s and Mathsci’s) topic ban. For example, if the topic bans cover every article related to the race and intelligence controversy, then that’s very easy to understand—it means that if an article is listed in this category then we can’t edit it, but if it isn’t then we can. However, I predict that a less clearly-defined boundary will result in a lot of further confusion over this. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the comments below (particularly Cool Hand Luke’s comment), the way that I’m currently interpreting the scope of my topic ban is that it covers all controversies that are specifically about race—such as what causes the difference in average IQ between races, to what extent racial groups line up with genetic clusters based on geographic ancestry, etc. But the conclusion I’m drawing is that my topic ban does not extend to articles about controversies where race is only one of many elements they involve, and not the main element. So on the topic of the voter intimidation case, there’s a race element because the New Black Panther Party is considered a black supremacist group, but the central controversy is over whether Obama’s department of justice is allowing politics to interfere with the objective application of justice, and that’s why the topic ban doesn’t cover it.
It would be helpful if arbitrators could clarify whether this interpretation is correct. I also approve of Vecrumba’s suggestion above, that labels be placed be placed on all of the articles covered by topic bans in order to forestall any future confusion over this. However, if this solution is to be used, I think the labels need to be placed by either clerks or arbitrators themselves. Otherwise, they’re going to represent only one editor’s interpretation of the scope of topic bans, which is not necessarily correct. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
No, editing Race (classification of humans) is prohibited by the topic ban. The remedy says that the topic ban applies to "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed." Construing it broadly, I think all articles about race controversies are included, including the Race article, and we did include this article when counting R/I edits, as aprock says. I may be open to allowing this editing after a few months of non-controversial editing (and I would personally entertain a request for amendment at a future date to allow such editing). However, I see no reason to allow such editing immediately after the case closed; users should take this opportunity to branch out. (Actually, the case isn't even closed yet, although it should be according to the time-stamps.) I have no strong views on whether New Black Panther Party is included; I think it is technically outside of the topic ban, but I would caution the user. Controversial editing in this area may lead to AE or other discretionary sanctions. Cool HandLuke04:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC) revised 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that New Black Panther Party is not primarily about race in the way that articles in the R&I category or Race (classification of humans) are centrally about race and claimed differences between races. I agree that it's outside of the topic ban for that reason. However, I reiterate that it's a very bad idea to edit in such a controversial area on the heels of an ArbCom case. See NYB's comment. Cool HandLuke22:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different things here and it is best to keep them separate. First, the discretionary sanctions apply to editors working on articles within the Race and intelligence controversy category and any closely related articles (which, for example, were for whatever reason not tagged as part of the controversy category). However, individual sanctions under this remedy can be very wide-ranging and can prevent specified editors working on any article, or commenting on any page. Second, the topic ban applying to named editors is much broader (which is why it doesn't use the same language as the discretionary sanctions) and applies to articles about race and about intelligence. The topic ban's objective is to prevent exportation of the dispute to other areas and to prevent pushing of permutations of the same POV agenda. I have no current opinion on the Black Panther article. Roger Daviestalk 06:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Expanded Roger Daviestalk08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The two Arbiters above covered it fairly completely but I'd also like to note that topic banned editors shouldn't be discussing the topic with other editors, especially not to try to influence their editing. I also want to remind Captain Occam that if people known to be associated with him suddenly start editing these articles, it will not be viewed favorably. Shellbabelfish07:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in general agreement with the other arbitrators on their interpretation of the scope of the topic-ban. I also reiterate my view that while the New Black Panther Party case is not within the scope of the topic-ban, it is a really poor idea for Captain Occam to start his editing career outside the race-and-intelligence area with this article. Please find another area to edit in; at a minimum, if your editing in areas relating directly or indirectly to race issues or matters pertaining to members of a particular race or ethnicity is tendentious or problematic, I anticipate that we will be asked to expand the scope of the ban, and that we would have to consider that request very seriously. I hope that this will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given what has elapsed here, I think the topic ban should be extended to include race-related articles. However, as I pointed out, a remedy proposing that in the proposed decision did not pass. I regret that Captain Occam chose (on the proposed decision talk page) to interpret this as implicit support for him editing so close to the boundaries here. There are plenty of articles he could chose to edit that are unrelated to either race or intelligence or both. There is absolutely no need to test the boundaries here in any way whatsoever. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The extension of the topic ban to include Ferahgo the Assassin who appears to be either a proxy account or a Sockpuppet account of Captain Occam.
Statement by Muntuwandi
This is a follow up to a request for enforcement found in this archive. According to the result two uninvolved administrators, Stifle and Slp1 stated that administrators who monitor the enforcement noticeboard were not in the position to make a decision concerning the request (Stifle suggested a request for amendment).
Immediately after Captain Occam's topic ban was confirmed, Ferahgo the Assassin, a user who apparently is known to Captain Occam, took an interest in editing race and intelligence articles. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam/Archive, the closing admin recommended that the two accounts should be treated as one per WP:SHARE. However no ruling was made concerning this matter from the enforcement noticeboard.
Since no ruling was made, Ferahgo the Assassin has continued to be involved in race and intelligence matters. The user's pattern of editing on race and intelligence matters is similar to that of Captain Occam. Much of the evidence is found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive68.
More recent events include further canvassing. Captain Occam has on occasion tried to seek help from Dbachmann [20],
[21], [22]. Recently Ferahgo the Assassin also tried to get help from Dbachmann, though it is the user's 'first time' communicating with Dbachmann, the user is already familiar with Dab stating. "You seem to be more active and responsive than him, so I figured I'd ask you" [23].
Others have argued that Ferahgo the Assassin should be treated as independent editor. I find this argument untenable. In the four years since Ferahgo the Assassin has been a registered user, all his or her edits prior to the arbitration were to support Captain Occam or his suggestions. I therefore see no evidence both post and pre-Arbitration of independent editing.
In summary Captain Occam appears to be gaming his topic ban, either by being a sockpuppet or by getting another editor to make edits on his behalf. I consider this a violation of his topic ban.
"I've made a number of productive contributions to them".Forgive me in advance but my reservoir of good faith has been somewhat depleted by recent events. I am of the opinion that many of your so called "productive edits" are really token edits to muddy up the issue. I believe that you are Captain Occam and that you are trying your best to be disruptive and at the same time trying your best to not get discovered. The current trajectory of your edits is clearly in the direction of more disruption. These edits [24], [25], and [26] are clearly confrontational and reminiscent of Captain Occam. :Wapondaponda (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand some of the sensitivities associated with this incident. I don't think anyone would want a newbie editor to immediately get caught up in arbitration hearings, per WP:BITE. At the same time others may exploit WP:BITE, to deflect legitimate criticisms. I take accusations of harassment very seriously. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision#Single_purpose_accounts and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision#Captain_Occam_.28conduct.29, single issue editing was a cause of concern. Captain Occam had an intense fixation on race and intelligence issues, which in my opinion was a major contributing factor to the escalation of the dispute. Captain Occam received a temporary editing restriction in part to help deescalate the dispute. If Captain Occam were to circumvent this editing restriction by having someone else make his choice of edits, then it defeats the purpose of the editing restriction. I believe the behavioral evidence strongly suggests that Captain Occam is either Ferahgo the Assassin or Ferahgo the Assassin is working in concert with Captain Occam. I have followed the appropriate channels to have this concern addressed, and while not everyone agrees with me, a number of editors, including uninvolved administrators, have stated that WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT or WP:SHARE are legitimate concerns. As long as this request is resolved, I will respect whatever decision is made, and will move on. :Wapondaponda (talk) 08:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ferahgo over chronology
Ferahgo states
"The arbcom decision was finalized on Aug 24. I stated my intention to get involved in these articles on Aug 21"
and
"For you to try and make your case look stronger by misrepresenting when I got involved in these articles is really disingenuous."
The point is that within a short time of the topic ban, Ferahgo decided to get involved in race issues. I was speaking in general terms when I wrote "something like within hours". Unfortunately I have to be pedantic and address this. According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision, items that receive a majority vote, in this case 6 votes, would pass. Looking at Captain Occam's section, the sixth vote in support of a topic ban came in at 06:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC) and the seventh at 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC). At 04:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC), that is within less than 24 hours of the sixth vote, Ferahgo the Assassin declares intentions to edit race and intelligence articles [27]. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find Captain Occam's recommendation that Captain Occam, in the form of Ferahgo the Assassin, be placed on probation quite comical. I want to respond to a few accusations. But I believe that if I were to add further comments to this thread, they wouldn't add much value to what is already in place. So I will avoid making more comments because I believe the pattern of editing of the involved editors is clear by now. Editors already familiar with Captain Occam will note that Ferahgo's conduct in this thread, responding to every post, conjuring up excuses for everything is certainly Occamesque.
I have mentioned before that I have only reluctantly requested for the account Ferahgo to fall under the scope of arbcom restrictions. It is possible that Ferahgo is a separate individual from Captain Occam so I do share the discomfort that a number of other editors have because it would be unfair to WP:BITE a newbie editor to the controversy. My concern isn't Ferahgo, rather it is Captain Occam. I would request others to not consider this thread a discussion about Ferahgo the individual, that is if he or she exists, rather it should be about whether Captain Occam is evading his editing restrictions by WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT OR WP:SHARE. If another editor is assisting Captain Occam evade his topic ban, then they shouldn't be surprised that that any restrictions on Captain Occam may be placed on them as well.
Just to specifically respond to accusations of coordinated POV pushing that Ferahgo/Occam are using to try to shift attention from their own conduct.
Ferahgo states
"It's about Muntuwandi and Weiji wanting to get rid of me - an easy target - so they can push their POVs more easily"
and
"Whether Weiji is right or wrong to want this, what matters here is that he and Muntuwandi shouldn't be trying to win a content dispute by getting arbcom to eliminate their opposition"
I think Weiji and I make our own independent decisions, we haven't agreed on everything. For instance here, I disagreed with Weiji over an article move (something which Ferahgo/Occam conveniently omitted from their evidence). Weiji later stated that his decision to move the article was based on a Britannica article and I understood where he was coming from. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Kirill
I respectfully disagree that there is little evidence suggesting that Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam are not independent. Two administrators have advised Ferahgo the Assassin that given her connection with Captain Occam, it wasn't a good idea for the user to be involved in race and intelligence matters immediately after Captain Occam's topic ban. According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Captain_Occam/Archive#Clerk.2C_patrolling_admin_and_checkuser_comments two uninvolved admins felt there was evidence. A checkuser was not carried out, as Captain Occam preempted it by admitting that he and Ferahgo the Assassin use the same Network/Computer when working on Wikipedia. As Stifle mentioned here , some declaratory relief would be helpful ie either Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are meatpuppets or they are not. I do think they are, I do not yet know what the broader community's opinion about this is, which is why have I filed this request. I will live with whatever is decided.
"I've already commented that this sort of painful prolonging of the arbitration (now seeming more like insistence) is unhelpful". I think the editors prolonging the arbitration are Captain Occam and his proxy account. If Captain Occam had been observing his topic ban like Mathsci or David.Kane, I wouldn't have filed this request. I don't enjoy filing these requests and I am doing so reluctantly and after some thought and consideration. Until today, Ferahgo the Assassin had never edited the race and genetics article. The user's very first edit to race and genetics is to revert to the use of an image related to the image which Captain Occam had been edit warring over [28]. Is this just a coincidence? I can't help but think not. :Wapondaponda (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Tim Song
I understand what you are saying. Basically even if F is a sock or meat of CO, as long as F is conducting themselves reasonably, then there are no problems. I have been thinking about that which was why I initially stated that I wasn't going to file another request after the enforcement request. The principle is found at Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which would imply that even if Occam is violating his topic ban by proxy or sock editing, if his edits are not hurting the encyclopedia, then it shouldn't matter. Others will argue that for a community to function effectively, rules should be observed. It's a philosophical issue that is beyond the scope of this debate.
You state "Once again we focus too much on the users and not the conduct." This is also fair, but I would like to give some context. The current dispute is close to one year old. For several months there was a lot of bickering over content issues with no peaceful resolution in sight. The dispute was escalated to Arbcom for the precise purpose of investigating user conduct issues. As the saying goes, Arbcom doesn't deal with content problems. In short, based on the circumstances of this dispute, some focus on users is justified.
"One effect of his doing this was to once again remove a chart from this article that he edit warred to remove a year ago (described in my arbitration evidence here), which resulted in him being placed under a month of 1RR on this article". Once again you are cherry picking sanctions, as GWH chose not to take sides and slapped a 0RR restriction on the both of us. See his comment here. I suggest that you refactor your statement to reflect this. The issue of the image has not been resolved. The subject is quite technical so I will make it as simple as possible. Captain Occam inserted an image into the race and genetics article. On his talk page he provides a link to his blog where he discusses the image [29] in which he writes that the image proves the unpopular theory that there is a biological basis for race. Captain Occam admits on his blog that he hasn't read the book where the image was originally sourced from, that is Cavalli Sforza's History and Geography of Human Genes. Captain Occam learned of the image from reading Arthur Jensen's book, The G factor, a book that is concerned with race and intelligence, the topic which Occam is fixated on. My conclusion, Captain Occam is advocating a race and intelligence POV in a separate article race and genetics. In fact I consider this the worst form of POV pushing because Occam was edit warring over an image from a book which he admitted he hadn't read. A book which explicitly states that readers shouldn't attach a racial meaning to the image, when Captain Occam was in fact attaching a racial meaning to the image. I started editing the race and genetics article after I read Cavalli-Sforza's books, so I hope others can understand my frustration that someone else was edit warring over content from a book which they had not read and showed no intention of reading. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to David Kane
"I assume that we all agree that Ferahgo and Occam are, in real life, two separate people"'. I don't necessarily agree with this line of reasoning. For Wikipedia purposes, it is possible that two separate editors may be treated as a single entity. According to WP:MEAT,
"For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity"
If the account named Ferahgo was indeed an independent editor, then this issue would never have been raised. Strictly speaking, this issue isn't about Ferahgo the Assassin, rather it is about Captain Occam and whether Captain Occam is using another editor or another account to try to evade his topic ban. The fact that an account named Ferahgo the Assassin decided to get involved in race issues something like within hours of Captain Occam's editing restriction being finalized demonstrates a lack of independence between the two accounts.
"Furthermore since David Kane and Occam have been topic banned I find myself feeling forced to make pro-hereditarian edits, simply because this viewpoint is now very weakly represented (among editors, not in the articles), I don't enjoy this as it is not a view I personally entertain"
I was intending to specifically address this issue, but Captain Occam's topic ban has never really worked because he has managed to evade it twice, first by claiming that the main race article didn't fall under the editing restrictions, and second by proxy editing. The notion that disruptive editing is somehow a necessary evil for the sake of neutrality just isn't true. Before Captain Occam and David Kane got involved in race issues, all the articles that included hereditarian arguments were already in place. So it isn't appropriate to give the missimpression that these two editors are the only editors who can represent "hereditarian theories" on wikipedia. You are implying that many editors involved in the articles are somehow non-neutral. There is general agreement among most or all editors involved that hereditarian or biological theories should be represented, the major concern is that they should not be misrepresented or given undue weight beyond the weight given to them by mainstream academia. In short, one doesn't need any elaborate excuses to make "pro-hereditarian arguments", one can simply go ahead and make them as others have done in the past.
As for "so what if Ferahgo is really proxy editing for Occam, as long as she is not displaying his behavioural problems as well". The decision will be up to the community through our representatives on Arbcom. That is should we allow Captain Occam to evade his topic ban (while others observe theirs) because FTA is allegedly not as disruptive as Captain Occam ( I still believe the user is disruptive). While we all have our POV, we should recall the guiding principles from the Arbcom case on single issue editing was
"Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."
I have stated that I have no problem with the image when it is sourced to the original authors and discussed in the way the original authors discussed the image. The problem is that the controversial scholar, Arthur Jensen used Cavalli-Sforza's image in his book The G-factor in a way that was inconsistent with Cavalli-Sforza's original interpretation. Captain Occam, based on his own admission, had never read Cavalli-Sforza's work used the image based on Arthur Jensen's interpretation, not on Cavalli-Sforza interpretation. This in the nutshell is the origin of the dispute concerning the image. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "you don't have to read a book before posting an image from it -". True, there is no policy that requires users to read the sources the cite. But I think we can all agree that it certainly is helpful to a read source before citing it to make sure that one is citing correctly or not taking things out of context.
I have never stated that I do or do not like Arthur Jensen's publications, only that they are controversial. More importantly Arthur Jensen isn't a molecular geneticist but a psychologist, and his book The G-Factor isn't about molecular genetics. The book and the author are therefore not good candidates for a reliable source on the subject.
I have had some challenges with image. Humans are visual creatures and Wikipedians appreciate images and articles with images. As the saying goes a picture is worth a thousand words. Many casual readers find the image quite interesting, and I do too. However few readers seem to pay attention to the actual text in the article or pay even less attention to the original source. The authors of the image do not use the image in a racial way, and they specifically caution that the image shouldn't be interpreted in a racial way. So my question has been why is this image being used in a racial context when the authors of the image did not. In my opinion it is due to inappropriate advocacy. I have no problem with using the image in an appropriate article such as human genetic variation or human evolution. Wapondaponda (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Maunus over topic ban proposal
I understand you have a good rapport with both Captain Occam and Ferahgo, and you have openly stated you would be happier if both had no editing restrictions. I am therefore aware that you have been uncomfortable with the discussions concerning FTA. I hope this is not the motivation for your proposal. I have persisted with this concern only because there was no decision and also because a number of uninvolved editors suggested the concern was legitimate. So far, I have not seen comments from uninvolved editors suggesting that my conduct has been inappropriate or way of line, so I have continued. I have stated on numerous occasions that I wish to voluntarily disengage from these topics for a while, and I haven't touched race and intelligence articles since the arbitration ended. I have maintained an interest in Captain Occam/FTA because the matter was one of the loose ends from the Arbcom case. If it is resolved, then I can move on as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To ANI
I have started a thread at ANI. A number of editors on all sides have expressed concern that a decision has not been forthcoming. Since Arbcom has already authorized administrative discretion, then maybe the community can reach a preliminary consensus over the matter, which would help deescalate some of the existing tension. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
In the few weeks that I've been participating on these articles, I've made a number of productive contributions to them, including suggesting new sources, rewording unclear sentences, seeking to achieve consensus on the talk pages, pointing out things I'd noticed, and striving to achieve neutrality. I have been using much of my free time recently to read and research this topic outside of Wikipedia in order to better contribute here. I had been under the impression that my presence here has been constructive and beneficial overall, and the other editors involved have been treating me like any other editor. Even editors like WeijiBaikeBianji and Aprock, who tend to disagree with me from time to time, have been willing to work with me to exchange ideas and improve the article. Of the currently involved editors, Muntuwandi - who is barely involved at all right now - is the only one who appears to think that I'm a sock or meatpuppet.
I have not violated a single policy since beginning to edit here: no tag-teaming, no edit warring, no false claims of consensus - nothing that Occam got in trouble for doing. The assertion that I was "canvassing" by asking DBachmann a question is ridiculous. I was specifically told by GWH [30] that I should ask an admin if I'm afraid there might be a policy violation on an article with discretionary sanctions, and that's exactly what I did. And yes, I'm familiar with DBachmann from watching these articles for a long time now, and his pattern of responsiveness is easy to see from his contributions. Other editors involved in these articles have contacted him for help recently: [31] It's also obvious that he's familiar with these articles in general: [32] There are very few admins who pay attention to R&I articles without being involved and are also very responsive, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there's some overlap in the admins Occam and I have contacted.
Muntuwandi's assertion that "In the four years since Ferahgo the Assassin has been a registered user, all his or her edits prior to the arbitration were to support Captain Occam or his suggestions" is downright ridiculous and demonstrably false. Take a look at my most edited articles: [33] Both before and after I became involved in these articles, most of my contributions have been to completely different types of articles from what Occam has been involved in, which does not fit the definition of Meatpuppetry given at Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Meatpuppetry: “A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose.”
I suspect that Muntuwandi chose to bring this arbcom case back from the dead today because I undid his revert on the Race and Genetics article. The reason I did this was because he reverted the article back to a version from over a year ago, undoing over a hundred edits in one revert without discussing it with anyone first. [34] Every time I've seen someone do this - which isn't many - it's always been regarded as disruptive.
Before I got involved in these articles, several people were worried my behavior and editing pattern would be too similar to Occam's. But I think it's unnecessary to be worried about this now that after being involved for a few weeks, all of my contributions to the articles have been constructive, and I have not engaged in any of the behavior Occam was sanctioned for. Sanctions are meant to be preventative, not punitive. Therefore I don't think it's reasonable to be topic-banned based on the fear that I might cause the same problems Occam did, when my actual contributions show otherwise. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Muntuwandi
Muntuwandi, all of the edits you've linked to were discussed on the talk pages and everyone except Weijibaikebianji agreed they were improvements. What you regard as confrontational almost everyone else sees as constructive. Your assumption of bad faith seems to be extending to twisting reality to make me look bad, when I haven't done anything wrong. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Muntuwandi: "The fact that an account named Ferahgo the Assassin decided to get involved in race issues something like within hours of Captain Occam's editing restriction being finalized demonstrates a lack of independence between the two accounts."
The arbcom decision was finalized on Aug 24. I stated my intention to get involved in these articles on Aug 21 [35], though I didn't get involved right away due to being busy with Rahiolisaurus and Siamotyrannus at the time. My first comment after the case that had anything to do with R&I was on Aug 27 [36], three days after arbitration had finished. I already explained elsewhere in my statement why I got involved when I did. For you to try and make your case look stronger by misrepresenting when I got involved in these articles is really disingenuous. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Muntuwandi 2: Once again, you're choosing to see what you want to see. I've already stated more than once that one of the main reasons I didn't get involved until after arbitration was because I couldn't stand Mathsci's behavior. So how about you take a look at whether there's any relationship between my getting involved and Mathsci's topic ban? Mathsci’s topic ban received the necessary number of votes from arbitrators at 23:30 on Aug 20. I expressed my intention to get involved around five hours later. And I stated this was because I expected to see improvements in the editing environment, which was due in large part to Mathsci's absence. My decision to get involved has a far closer and more obvious relationship to Mathsci's topic ban than anything else. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Muntuwandi 3: "My concern isn't Ferahgo, rather it is Captain Occam. I would request others to not consider this thread a discussion about Ferahgo the individual, that is if he or she exists, rather it should be about whether Captain Occam is evading his editing restrictions by WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT OR WP:SHARE."
I underside the point you're trying to make, but from my perspective this just seems dehumanizing and unfair. It is about me, not about Occam. Your SPI concluded that he and I are separate people, though it did raise the issue of a topic ban based on WP:SHARE. If I get banned because of Occam, then I'm the one who suffers, not him.
There seems to be some deliberate ambiguity about what policy you think is being violated. The SPI concluded I'm unlikely to be a sockpuppet, and I don't fit the definition of meatpuppet either. A meatpuppet is "a new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose." Around three-quarters of my edits are still outside of this topic area. [37] But when David.Kane pointed out that the WP:SHARE policy only applies to policies such as 3RR and not editing restrictions, you responded by claiming the issue isn't WP:SHARE but meatpuppetry instead. Can you please be specific about which of these three policies you think I'm violating? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Shell
Shell: I know that Occam and I could be considered closely-connected users via Wikipedia:SHARE. It says: "“Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.” Occam and I might have had similar objectives before the arbcom case, and at that point it didn't matter if we did. When he didn't have sanctions against him it only mattered that we observed policies like 3RR as though we were the same account, and we were careful to do so.
Things are totally different now. Occam is topic-banned and that means it's important that I don't edit these articles with the same objectives he did. Wikipedia:SHARE is very clear about this: if I edit the articles with the same objectives as him, then he and I can be considered the same account. If I don’t, then we can’t. That's why I've recently gone to so much trouble developing my own independent style and personality in editing these articles, researching outside of Wikipedia, reading a great deal on this topic, etc. Every other involved editor besides Muntuwandi seems to acknowledge this.
I don't feel that there's anything to indicate that my current editing style or objectives are more similar to Occam's than they are to many other editors. For example, my undo of Muntuwandi's revert of a year's worth of edits with no discussion. Even if this is something Occam would have done (and I don't even know if it is!) it's also something that loads of other editors would have done, since it was pretty obviously disruptive. You might as well accuse me of being Occam because I revert vandalism, since that's probably something he would do too! During the time since Occam's topic ban, is there anything about my edits that indicate they're more similar to Occam than they are to, say, Victor Chmara and Maunus? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Maunus
Maunus: As far as I know, the only pov I've been taking on these articles is a neutral one. That seems consistent with the fact that others like you and aprock have agreed that each of my edits has been beneficial. If there's something non-neutral about my editing patterns, it'd be nice if someone had pointed this out to me on the talk pages.
I honestly feel that avoiding repeating Occam's mistakes will be a pretty simple task. From my understanding he came to these articles before getting much experience with anything else at Wikipedia, and at a time when the editing environment on them was pretty terrible. He had no editing experience elsewhere and ended up copying and contributing to the same problematic behavior that was the norm there at that point. I'm coming here with a fair amount of experience, both from editing unrelated topics and from watching these articles for quite a while. I also obviously watched the arbcom case and I know exactly what everyone got sanctioned for. It shouldn't be hard to figure out how I can avoid doing the same things, especially with the improved editing environment.
Also I pointed out somewhere before (might have been the arb enforcement thread) that the reason I'm editing these articles now is because I've always been interested in this topic, but for ages have been afraid to get involved because of the editing atmosphere. As I stated in my evidence for the arbcom case, I've tried getting involved before and other editors were unwilling to respond to me with anything other than ad hominem attacks. Likely because of the discretionary sanctions, these problems have mostly gone away. I'd have begun editing here sooner if they'd gone away before the arbcom case. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Prof Marginalia
Prof Marginalia: Everything in your comment I've already addressed at length. I'd like to point out something else I've noticed, though. Of the people commenting here who are actually editing with me on these articles, every one of them is arguing against a topic ban. And these are the people with experience to know whether I'm being disruptive or not. The only people for the topic ban (so far just you and Muntuwandi) are people who haven't been participating in these articles since the end of the arb case.
I see two groups of people here. People who just care about the quality of the articles, and the people who want to continue petty drama leftover from the arb case. The active editors don't always agree with me on content, but we're willing to get along and make actual improvements when people like you and Muntuwandi aren't interfering. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Prof M: There wouldn't be any drama if not for these threads, since I've made nothing but constructive edits since the arb case and have not engaged in disruptive behavior. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Prof M: I'd like to point out once again that nothing I was doing before the arbcom case violated policy. Occam and I were closely related accounts, and we also frequently edited with the same objectives, so Occam disclosed his off-Wiki connection to me immediately after I first became involved in the articles. [38] (When you say I've been "dodgy" about this are you not including his having stated this last November? So you consider me the same person as him in every respect but this one?) Whether you like it or not, WP:SHARE makes it clear that none of what I did was a policy violation, as long as he and I disclosed our connection and observed policies like 3RR as though we were a single user - which we did.
As I described in my arbitration evidence, even though I was careful to follow this policy, I was never met with anything other than hostility when discussing these articles. Remember, this was months after Occam had disclosed his off-wiki connection to me in his user talk, which should have been all that mattered. Yet even though no one could ever point to a specific policy I was violating, every comment I tried to leave was pounced on by a small group of users with questions prying into the personal details of my relationship with Occam, bringing up things about it that should have stayed private. It really should come as no surprise that this reception caused me to lose interest in these articles for months at a time, and devote my energies elsewhere at Wikipedia where I knew they'd be more appreciated.
As I pointed out in my evidence mathsci was the one who first started treating me this way, and until his topic ban he did it more than anyone. It was part of the overall pattern of behavior (incivility and personal attacks) that caused his ban. During the case I was hoping the arbitrators would do something to keep the others from continuing to emulate his behavior, but the case didn't address that issue. Maybe something can be done about it now.
Some of the people who copied mathsci's behavior toward me in the past are doing almost the same thing now, but the situation has 2 big differences now. First of all I'm not following Occam anymore, or taking his lead in any respect. Secondly, in the past I was prevented from contributing in any meaningful way by this hostility, but now I'm actively engaged in helping to improve the articles, and most of the others currently involved seem to appreciate my participation. This is why I won't allow myself to be driven away as easily as before. It can't be good for the encyclopedia to allow editors who aren't contributing to a group of articles to run off someone who is, so I'm not going to give into your and Muntuwandi's efforts to do this unless arbcom decides I have to. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to aprock
Aprock, I'm not sure if you think this is a problem, but I'll address it as though you do: Jensen's Clocking the Mind is the only book specifically about mental chronometry that's been published in the last 20 years. And it doesn't even mention race differences. From this book I added only historical information relating to early RT testing. You're expecting too much if you want a balanced and informative article on mental chronometry that doesn't mention Jensen, since regardless of your opinion on him, he's the most prolific modern researcher that there is on MC. I have several older books and papers in possession currently that I'm hoping to use to improve this article soon, like stuff by Carroll, but unfortunately this current case is eating up a lot of my time and energy.
I honestly can't believe that even my edits about the history of MC are being nitpicked now. People can't assume good faith about even this? Maybe things haven't improved here as much as I thought. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out here that I wish the arbitrators would see the distinction between my behavior on these articles before and after the arb case. I am willing to admit that before arbitration I was not participating in these articles independently from Occam. When I commented on these articles at all I was following him around, watching what he was involved in. My involvement here changed for two reasons after the arb case. First of all, with Occam banned supporting him isn't acceptable, so in order to contribute here I need to stand on my own two feet. I mentioned the improved editing environment as the other reason for this, but to be honest, there’s also a more specific reason... I was a bit afraid of mathsci when he was here.
I find it really discouraging how my behavior in these articles before the arb case is continuously brought up as evidence that I can't edit here independently of Occam, as though nothing has changed about my editing here since then. If there are any lingering similarities between my style and his from when I used to follow him around, I'm confident those will disappear quickly if they haven't already. I'm also totally confident I'll be able to avoid the mistakes Occam made that resulted in his topic ban if given the chance. Isn't giving editors a chance in this respect the whole point of WP:ROPE? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of Muntuwandi's last post above, I would like the arbitrators to consider whether what he's doing here (and at SPI... and at the arbitration enforcement board...) is a form of harassment. This is getting pretty extreme: even though no one has yet made a decision that I'm a sock, he's already referring to my edits as what "Captain Occam seems to be hoping" as if I'm nothing. Looking at his contributions [39], I see that over 90% of his involvement in these articles since the arbcom case has been for the sole purpose of trying to get rid of me. Is it healthy for these articles to include an editor whose only goal here is to get rid of another editor? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Weiji and comments on recent conduct
Paleontology articles do not require anywhere close to the level of discussion that R&I articles do. Additionally, I've been working on an illustration for Concavenator recently, and that takes a lot of time - most of my paleo energy has gone into that lately. (Paleo articles, by the way, are almost always based on primary sources for newly-described information and species, since it's often years before secondary sources begin to cover them - this is not new, nor is it a problem.)
The longer this amendment thread sits here, the more I think the real nature of this situation becomes apparent. A couple days ago Maunus (an administrator who usually disagreed with Occam) invited me to propose a draft for how to improve the "in biomedicine" section of the Race (classification of humans) article. As soon as I posted my draft there, Muntuwandi - who had not commented on this article in several months, and had not edited it since 2009 - immediately showed up and left this comment. The comment was then removed by Maunus. Maunus and I both tried to discuss this with Muntuwandi in his user talk, where Muntuwandi stated that he opposed my draft simply because I was the person proposing it: "From my experience interacting with Captain Occam, I believe it is within reason to be concerned if he or his associates choose to make any major changes to race related articles." The only other editors who expressed an opinion about my draft, Maunus and Terra Novus, both approve of it. Neither of them were allies of Occam while he was editing these articles.
I'm still not edit warring, tag-teaming, or making false claims of consensus, which are the things for which Occam was topic banned. And the vast majority of Muntuwandi's involvement in Wikipedia is still devoted to opposing me - even following me to articles I'm trying to contribute to that he hasn't touched in a good while. Several editors who generally disagreed with Occam, like Maunus and Aprock, seem to think I'm valuable. But among the few editors who have disagreed with both me and Occam, the attitude is to try and discredit any opinions and contributions I offer by equating me with him, even when the contributions are perfectly fine. In the case of both Muntuwandi and Weiji, I am far from the only editor who disagrees with them: Maunus and Vecrumba obviously have a problem with Muntuwandi's behavior (see the discussion in Muntuwandi's user talk that Vecrumba linked to), and in this discussion three other editors (Victor Chmara, Moxy and Dbachmann) all accused Weiji of POV-pushing on these articles. Where's the evidence for Weiji's claim that I'm engaging in "a pattern of editor conduct indistinguishable from Captain Occam’s," other than the fact that I disagree with him in areas where Occam probably would, and several other editors do as well?
Most of the accusations of POV-pushing and incivility from neutral editors on these articles are directed at Muntuwandi and Weiji, not me. I'm starting to think this whole issue isn't about meatpuppetry at all. It's about Muntuwandi and Weiji wanting to get rid of me - an easy target - so they can push their POVs more easily.
It can't possibly be a coincidence that the two editors involved in these articles that are trying to get me topic-banned are the only two whom neutral editors have accused of POV-pushing and incivility since the proposal of this amendment. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weiji's new comment is probably the best demonstration so far of the purpose of this thread. This is obviously a content dispute, but he's still appealing to arbcom in hope that they'll get rid of the editor who disagrees with him.
If you look at the discussion Weiji linked to, you'll see that what actually happened is that he made a large edit without inciting discussion, which involved removing all of the positive or neutral links on Lynn, and leaving only the highly negative ones (such as the ones that call him a racist) and adding another negative one. [40] I made a partial revert of his edit, and posted on the talk page saying that we should discuss these changes and add them back one at a time, after which he immediately reinstated his edit without waiting for any discussion. [41] In the discussion on the talk page, Maunus eventually pointed out that the all of links critical of Lynn which Weiji had kept or added had all of the same WP:EL problems that the ones Weiji had removed, and removed those also.
The book Weiji added to "further reading," which refers to Lynn's research as "scientific racism," Weiji has posted on EIGHT talk pages, giving it effusive praise and suggesting that further edits to all of these articles ought to be based on this book. [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] The book is a reliable source, but it's also strongly opinionated and it should seem obvious that not everyone would agree with rewriting all of these articles based on it.
Whether Weiji is right or wrong to want this, what matters here is that he and Muntuwandi shouldn't be trying to win a content dispute by getting arbcom to eliminate their opposition. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Vecrumba
I've already commented that this sort of painful prolonging of the arbitration (now seeming more like insistence) is unhelpful. Were this two or three months down the line and Ferahgo were employing disruptive tactics or questionable sources—regardless of likeness to Occam—then if that's the case it can simply be dealt with. Until then I am content to allow Ferahgo to establish their own edit history. As someone who, myself, was attacked simply for showing up at R&I and related and had derision, aspersions and innuendo heaped on my head, whether for no good reason or based on unrelated prior Wikipedia conflicts, this on the face of it looks, smells, and tastes too familiar for my comfort, regardless of anyone's best intentions here. I have already stated pretty much the same at Muntuwandi's talk. (Please leave that section in place for the duration of the proceedings here, thank you!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK14:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. To Ferahgo's above, I respect WeijiBaikeBianji's editorial opinion as informed and non-extremist; "everyone except WeijiBaikeBianji agreed" is not an optimal representation of consensus, but that is a discussion not for here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK14:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Muntuwandi ("If Captain Occam had been observing his topic ban like Mathsci or David.Kane, I wouldn't have filed this request."): Guilty until proven innocent is premature at this point is my only point. The only problem I've seen at the topic is that editors are still a bit on edge given the recent and ugly conflict; even if I accept that you may be completely correct, you are only honing that edge at the moment as there's not enough edit history to do much of anything else. If there isn't sufficient edit history, you can make someone out to be anyone you want them to be. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tim Song
Once again we focus too much on the users and not the conduct. So what if F. is editing on Occam's behalf? If there is disruption, it can be dealt with under the discretionary sanctions; if there is no disruption, what is there to complain about? We are spending a lot of time and energy here, and what will we gain from this? The ability to avoid the initial disruption needed for imposition of discretionary sanctions - if the disruption ever happens? Doesn't sound like a good deal to me, at all. T. Canens (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by other aprock
To the extent that Ferahgo sticks to content issues, and is willing to read and quote sources her activity is productive. To the extent that she takes a revert first, then discuss non-content issues, her activity is counter-productive. Currently, there is a little of both, but not enough of either to make any strong conclusions. The biggest potential disruption is that Ferahgo will take on the role of gate keeper, forcing everyone to route all edits through her. This isn't a problem at the moment. aprock (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two important points here, both of which have already been made by other editors. The first is what Ferahgo pointed out in her response to Shell: Ferahgo’s current editing on these articles is no more similar to mine than it is to numerous other editors. Her editing style was much more similar to mine in the past, when I wasn’t topic banned and it therefore didn’t matter whether we edited these articles with the same objectives. But I think she’s made it abundantly clear by this point that she’s capable of editing these articles independently of me, now that my topic ban requires this from her if she’s going to participate.
And the other important point is the one made by Tim Song. The purpose of my topic ban was in order to prevent me from continuing to disrupt these articles by edit warring, tag-teaming, and making false claims of consensus. Ferahgo has done none of these things, and none of the other editors involved in these articles have had any problem with her behavior. At the same time, she’s been making a large number of constructive edits to articles in this topic area, particularly the Mental chronometry article. If she is to be topic banned on the suspicion that she’s a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this will be an example of enforcing the letter of the law (if she actually is violating the letter of the law) in a way that completely contradicts the spirit of it. Although the purpose of my topic ban was to prevent me from continuing to cause disruption on these articles, the only effect that extending it to Ferahgo will have is to lose a constructive and civil contributor to these articles, who has not been accused of disruption by anyone other than Muntuwandi.
I think everyone who’s actively involved in these articles wants to put the arbitration behind them. I also want to put it behind myself, but Muntuwandi’s constant harping on it is making this very difficult. Other than his three recent attempts to get Ferahgo banned, Muntuwandi’s only involvement in these articles since the end of the arbitration case is his recent revert of a year’s worth of edits on the Race and genetics article with no prior discussion. One effect of his doing this was to once again remove a chart from this article that he edit warred to remove a year ago (described in my arbitration evidence here), which resulted in him being placed under a month of 0RR on this article. When the only thing Muntuwandi is currently doing on these articles is repeating the behavior for which he was previously sanctioned, his seeking of sanctions against a constructive editor who happens to disagree with him seems completely disingenuous. The problem here is not anything that Ferahgo is doing; it’s Muntuwandi’s repeated drama-mongering. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Muntuwandi
GWH placed me under a month 0RR on Race and genetics for going straight to AN/I about a conflict that I should have first tried to resolve somewhere like WQA, and I’ve avoided making this mistake again after being sanctioned for it. Your own 0RR was due to your continued removing of the image based not on anything about the image itself, but based on what you perceived as my motives for adding it, which in turn was based on something I’d written outside of Wikipedia. You continued trying to remove it regardless of how I changed it to address your objections, including when I read the relevant part of Cavalli-Sforza’s book and modified the image to closely match the original source, as well as after Varoon Arya created a new version of the image in an attempt to satisfy you. Yet despite being given a clear message from GWH that your doing this was not acceptable, you’re continuing to claim that “The issue of the image has not been resolved”, reverting the article back a year in order to remove the image yet again, and now are once again repeating the same justification for removing it that resulted in your original sanction.
Do you not see how bizarre this is? Your obsession with removing any and every form of this image has now lasted approximately a year, and since the end of the arbitration case this has been the entire extent of your involvement in these articles. And now, it’s resulting in an amendment request because someone felt that your reverting the article back a year in order to restore a version without the image was not a reasonable thing to do. Recidivism, article ownership, assuming bad faith… there are too many problems with what you’re doing here for me to cover them all. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be pointed out how predictable the pattern of comments here has been. The four editors arguing in favor of a topic ban—Muntuwandi, Marginalia, WeijiBaikeBianji, and Mathsci—are not uninvolved in this dispute, nor are they neutral. All four of them were involved in the arbitration case, and for all four of them the overwhelming focus of their involvement in it was to try and obtain sanctions against me and the other editors who tended to agree with me. This is most apparent from looking at the arguments they presented on the “evidence” page. On the other hand all of the editors who didn’t display this us-vs-them attitude during the arbitration case, or weren’t involved in it at all, are opposed to a topic ban. This includes Tim Song, Maunus, and Vecrumba.
The editors who have a personal stake in getting rid of Ferahgo don’t actually outnumber the neutral editors, at least not on the articles or their talk pages. But what happens in discussions like this one is that when anyone just cares about improving the quality of the articles, they’re not going to care enough about what happens to Ferahgo to comment here more than once or twice, if they comment at all. Since she’s relatively new to these articles, she doesn’t have a network of supporters whom she can rely on to defend her here. But on the other hand, the editors who are devoted to eliminating as much of their opposition as possible are all going to make sure they comment here and accuse her of wrongdoing, and (in some cases) continue to make additional accusations if she tries to reply to them. It looks like in her own comments here Ferahgo has been trying to keep up with all of what the editors who want her banned have been saying about her, but when she’s basically on her own against all four of them, trying to do this is pretty futile.
What I find both interesting and discouraging is how this is apparently affecting the opinions of arbitrators. Kirill was the first arbitrator to comment here, and when he left his comment stating that a topic ban is unnecessary because Ferahgo isn’t causing any disruption, all of the same facts were available about her that are available now. (The issue of possible meatpuppetry and WP:SHARE had already been discussed both at the arbitration enforcement board, and during the arbitration itself.) But as soon as the editors who want Ferahgo banned showed up in this discussion and began to dominate it, every arbitrator who commented after that point supported a topic ban for her. Since none of the subsequent comments from Muntuwandi, Marginalia, WeijiBaikeBianji, and Mathsci involved any evidence that the arbitrators hadn’t seen already, what else could have changed to turn the arbitrators in favor of a topic ban? The only thing Ferahgo has been doing during this time is making constructive edits and suggestions for the articles, which are appreciated by most of the people involved in them.
I’m sure most arbitrators are aware that one of the negative aspects of Wikipedia’s reputation is that on articles on controversial topics, the viewpoint which wins out is usually the one favored by the largest number of editors involved in the article, regardless of whether or not this viewpoint is the most prominent one in reliable sources. Other people have told me this numerous times both before and after I became involved here, and during my involvement I’ve come to understand why it’s the case. A cabal of like-minded editors is always capable of defeating a lone user in an edit war, and will usually also win out at AN/I. (Consensus is supposed to be more than just a vote, but when 10 or 15 editors are clamoring for sanctions against a lone editor and completely dominating the discussion, it’s not often that the closing admin will base their decision on something other than what the vast majority of people commenting seem to want.) Until now, I had hoped that ArbCom was the one part of Wikipedia that wasn’t susceptible to this, but it looks like maybe I was wrong. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: I won’t deny that I’m involved also, which is why I haven’t participated in this thread nearly as much as Muntuwandi, Marginalia and Ferahgo herself have. I’m sure arbitrators could have predicted that I wouldn’t support a topic ban for someone I’m friends with in real life, so I didn’t expect my opinion that it’s unwarranted to have very much influence on the outcome of this thread. But the same principle should also apply to the other editors who have been heavily involved in seeking sanctions for whoever disagrees with them, and whose reactions here are every bit as predictable for this reason. Right now, these editors are the source of 100% of the arguments for a topic ban—if there are uninvolved and neutral editors who would support a topic ban (as Shell suggests), they aren’t commenting here. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to new comments from Maunus and Muntuwandi
Maunus’s updated comment expresses a very reasonable concern that with so few editors who are willing to edit from the hereditarian perspective, there’s a danger that the weight of the articles might shift towards the opposite extreme. I don’t think Muntuwandi’s reassurance that he and WeijiBaikeBianji are as capable as anyone else of preserving the neutrality of these articles is consistent with their editing patterns since the end of the arbitration case. I’m going to provide a sampling of their edits since then to show why I think Maunus’s concern about this is a reasonable one:
[50] Muntuwandi reverts the Race and genetics article back a year without any discussion. When this was undone by an IP editor, the one-year revert was reinstated by WeijiBaikeBianji, still without any discussion. Muntuwandi is currently under an a revert restriction which limits him to one revert per day, so this is an example of him and WBB tag-teaming in order to get around the restrictions on Muntuwandi’s account.
[51][52][53][54] WBB renames four IQ-related articles without any discussion. Less than an hour later, he suggests that Race and intelligence be renamed in order to match the names of these other articles that he’d just renamed. When Ferahgo mentionsFertility and intelligence as an article that’s still named in a way that’s consistent with Race and intelligence’s original title, around three hours later WBB renames that one also.
Three days later, after several editors have already expressed a problem with WBB’s undiscussed renames of IQ-related articles, he renamesRace and genetics to “Genetics and the decline of race”, again without any discussion. This caught the attention of Dbachmann, an administrator who sometimes watches these articles, who described WBB’s behavior as “a rather crude example of pov-pushing by article title.”
[55][56] Two examples of WBB selectively adding and removing links from articles about researchers who favor the hereditarian perspective. The issue here is not that the links he removed necessarily belonged there, but that both of these edits had the overall effect of removing every link which described these researchers favorably, and keeping only links which were critical of them, some of which were no more relevant to the articles than the links he’d removed. When Ferahgo reverted one of these edits due to her believing it to be an NPOV issue, WBB immediately reinstated his edit without waiting for any discussion.
[57][58][59] Another example of Muntuwandi and WeijiBaikeBianji tag-teaming in order to get around Muntuwandi’s revert restriction on these articles. Note that WeijiBaikeBianji reinstated Muntuwandi’s edit exactly twelve minutes after it was reverted by someone who disagreed with it. Also notice that in the discussion about this, Weiji has not responded to requests that he explain in what way he thinks the content he removed misrepresents the source, and Muntuwandi has insisted on making personal comments about other editors rather than discussing content. [60][61][62][63]. What he says in the third diff is particularly pertinent—although Maunus had already asked him in his user talk to stop doing this, Muntuwandi is stating that he feels no need to follow Maunus’s advice.
I would have hoped that with discretionary sanctions authorized on these articles, admins would be do something about this sort of thing when it occurs, but no uninvolved admins seem to be paying attention to what’s happening on these articles. Ferahgo has asked two administrators (GeorgeWilliamHerbert and Dbachmann) in their user talk if there’s any way to get uninvolved admins to pay attention to these articles, but neither of them replied to her question.
There aren’t as many examples of edits from Muntuwandi that could be considered POV-pushing as there are from WeijiBaikeBianji, and this is partly because Muntuwandi has made very few content edits in this topic area since the end of the arbitration case. The issue in his case is the lengths that he’s gone to in his effort to drive off his opposition. Ferahgo already described one recent example of this in her own statement, but Muntuwandi’s last comment here accusing me of evading my ban on the Race (classification of humans) article is another example. Not only have I not participated in this article since the end of the arbitration case; I also made it clear on the talk page (here) that I intended to voluntarily disengage from this article after my topic ban, even though I didn’t think my topic ban would cover it. The argument that resulted from me saying this was because several editors had a problem with me regarding this as a voluntary restriction. I’ve pointed this out to Muntuwandi before, so I know he’s aware of it; as far as I can tell, he’s claiming that I evaded my ban on this article just because it makes his case against Ferahgo look stronger.
The overall attitude I’m seeing from Muntuwandi and WeijiBaikeBianji is a lot of eagerness to get rid of the editors who tend to disagree with their point of view, combined with eagerness to make the articles conform to their points of view when most of the editors who would oppose this are out of the way. This is something that I think arbitrators ought to consider if they’re wondering why Ferahgo’s activity on the articles rapidly increased after the end of the arbitration case. In addition to Mathsci’s topic ban removing the main barrier to her involvement there, with me and David.Kane also topic banned she was one of the only people left on these articles with the knowledge and motivation to oppose behavior there that I think can be accurately described as POV-pushing.
Over the past several months, there has been an overall trend on these articles where one way or another, more and more of the people who edit from a neutral or hereditarian perspective have been driven off. Varoon Arya [64] and Distributivejustice [65] both said that this was because they couldn’t tolerate how others were treating them. Bpesta22 never specifically stated why he left, but one of his last comments before disappearing complained about “the treatment one gets here”. Even though topic-banning me, David.Kane and Mikemikev may have been for the best overall, it also had the unintentional side effect of reinforcing this trend—the three of us were the three most active remaining editors who tended to edit from a hereditarian perspective, while Mathsci was only one of a great many whose editing was primarily from the environmental perspective.
Maunus, who seems to care a lot about the neutrality of these articles, has recently indicated in his user talk that he might be quitting the articles out of frustration soon also. The more people like him leave, the more difficult it gets for people like this who remain, because the editors who are devoted to driving off whoever disagrees with them will be focusing their efforts at this on a smaller and smaller group of editors. It also makes the editors who’ve previously quit out of frustration less likely to return, because they’ll know that if they ever do they’re likely to be treated even worse than they had been originally. As arbitrators decide what to do here, I think they should consider how a topic ban for Ferahgo would encourage this trend, and how this trend may ultimately affect the articles. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to add: Ferahgo’s comment here seems to confirm that what I stated above is a major reason for her recent involvement in these articles. Arbitrators should take note of this. The central motivation here does not appear to be meatpuppetry or proxy editing; it’s the fear that the articles’ neutrality will be skewed in an environmental direction now that almost all of the editors who’ve cared about preventing this have either quit or been topic banned, and discretionary sanctions are not having any effect in preventing POV-pushing on these articles. Maunus appears to share this concern of hers, even though he personally disagrees with the hereditarian perspective, so I think it’s clearly a reasonable concern to have. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Slp1: I would like to point out that I don’t feel I’ve been given the opportunity to disengage from these articles. What I mean by this is that almost as soon as my topic ban was implemented, and I began editing in other areas, I’ve been faced with a repeated series of accusations from Muntuwandi that one way or another I’m not following my topic ban—first at the arbitration enforcement board, then at SPI, and now here. All three of the three most recent comments in my user talk are from him complaining about this. In most cases, my reason for involvement is not only for the sake of the articles, or for Ferahgo’s sake—if the SPI had ruled that Ferahgo was a sockpuppet of mine I probably would have been blocked as a sockpuppeteer, and in this thread Mathsci is suggesting additional sanctions against me.
I completely agree that it’s a problem for me to be involved here this heavily, and I would really like not to be. But to say that the effort to get Ferahgo topic banned is an appropriate response to my involvement here is to confuse cause and effect. The effort to get her topic banned, the repeated messages about this in my user talk, and the related efforts to implement additional sanctions against me are what’s causing this. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1 2: I don’t think you understand the reason why I’m bringing this up. All of the behavior I’ve described here is from after the case ended, so the goal here isn’t to argue about the validity of the existing arbcom decision, which obviously couldn’t have considered things that hadn’t occurred yet. The relevant question is whether going forward, Maunus is right that editors like Ferahgo are necessary in order to prevent the articles from being excessively slanted in an environmental direction, or whether Muntuwandi is right that he and WeiiBaikeBianji can preserve the neutrality of these articles without any help. Based on the examples of Muntuwandi’s and WeiiBaikeBianji’s recent behavior that I provided above, I think it’s clear that Maunus is right.
As I said, it would be vastly preferable if none of this were necessary. When threads like this aren’t going on, Ferahgo is contributing to the articles in a way that most other people find productive, and I’m focusing my attention on unrelated articles, which I think is the way things should be. But when editors are trying to obtain sanctions for her and additional sanctions for me, everyone involved gets distracted from what they ought to be doing and sucked into this drama. Any arbitration remedy needs to address the underlying issues that exist on these articles, not just the symptoms of the amendment thread itself. And those issues include Muntuwandi’s obsession with eliminating his opposition from these articles (which continues to make up the majority of his activity since the end of the arbitration case) and WeiiBaikeBianji’s apparent POV-pushing. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Maunus
The only thing I find weird is that while Ferahgo claims that she is painfully aware that according to WP:SHARE she can be considered the same account as CaptainOccam is she edits with the same objectives as he did, and that she therefore should avoid editing patterns similar to his, but she has chosen to manifest this awareness by entering into the same debate in which Occam is topic banned, arguing from the same pov as he did. This seems contradictory to me. Now, I didn't advocate a topicban for Occam and will not advocate one for Ferahgo untill such a point that she might demonstrate that she is not interested in collaborative editing. However the discrepancy between her stated awarenes of WP:SHARE and her actions jars in my ears, and I would like her to elaborate on how, now that she has chosen to emulate Occams choice of editing topics, she is going to avoid repeating his mistakes.·Maunus·ƛ·00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
update I don't think Ferahgo can be said to display battlegroud behaviour in her recent activity at R&I related articles. If she does it has clearly been from frustration by the way other editors have been treating her. She does edit from the pro-hereditarian viewpoint, which she apparently shares with Occam to a large extent and knows as much about. This is the only worry I have on grounds of principle I think it is an unfortunate situation that of two editors editing from the same computer on the same articles one is topic banned and the other isn't. This does open possibilities for gaming and loophole surfing. However I agree with Tim Song that this problem is best solved by being pragmatic about it and saying, "so what if Ferahgo is really proxy editing for Occam, as long as she is not displaying his behavioural problems as well." Occam wasn't banned because of his POV but because of his editing behaviour. Furthermore since David Kane and Occam have been topic banned I find myself feeling forced to make pro-hereditarian edits, simply because this viewpoint is now very weakly represented (among editors, not in the articles), I don't enjoy this as it is not a view I personally entertain. I would urge all editors to be mindful of balance and forexample when cleaning up articles not only remove the dubious or badly written material with which they disagree but also dubious and badly written material with which they agree and try to move towards a synthesis instead of just shifting the weight towards the other extreme.·Maunus·ƛ·23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Price - It is a pretty standard image, what made it misleading was the context. Cavalli-Sforza is qute upfront in saying that the tree does not illustrate "races" but bio-geographical genetic clusters. When taken out of that context as an illustration of genetic differences between races that is misleading. However you are right it is a content POV issue - but it is an that has been grossly aggravated by substandard editing behaviour from editors on both sides of the dispute. Please do read up on the entire case when commenting. The world is more often than not more complex than what it looks like at a quick glance. ·Maunus·ƛ·17:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Price: Occam and David Kane and Mathsci have been topic banned because arbcom saw them as having a general pattern of problematic behaviour - not based on that one edit. ·Maunus·ƛ·17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@MichaelPrice: We are all aware that there has been a long time problematic editing environment at Race related articles - we have gone through a several months long ArbCom case that attests to that. You are only pointing out what is obvious to everyone who has been involved: Race related articles have been a battleground for the last several months, this is what we are working towards changing. This amendment case I guess is part of that process. ·Maunus·ƛ·18:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment to Captain Occam's comment:I want to make clear that the reason I am likely to stop watching race related articles in the near future is not due to frustration with the the editors, but simply with the long and tediouis process of arbitration during which progress on the topic has been stalled.·Maunus·ƛ·22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I think ArbCom should strongly consider extending a topic ban to User:Muntuwandi. The user was displaying behavioural issues on race related articles before including Editwarring and Battleground mentality. (S)he wasn't made a party to the original case because he was observing a "voluntary topic ban" and was not editing the articles at the time when the ArbCom procedure was begun. S/He has apparently found the topicbanning of Captain Occam and David Kane to be an occasion to return to editing the articles, but as far as I can discern the original behavioural problems including edit warring, battleground mentality and a general lack of respecting other editors personal dignity are still present. I think it would be a good idea to pre-empt problems at the article by letting Muntuwandi edit elsewhere. I am not myself going to campaign more for this proposal, as I have decided to take an editing vacation from the Race and intelligence topic, but I think ArbCom should review Muntuwandi's recent behaviour and consider whether a topic ban would be likely to improve the editing environment. Best.·Maunus·ƛ·03:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Muntuwandi Contrary to what you suggest being in "good rapport" with other editors is not considered a crim at wikipedia, it is rather considered a requisite for being able to edit here in our collaborative encyclopedia - "being in good rapport" even with editors with whom one disagrees is established as a fundamental value in our policies WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. That you would use the fact that I insist on being on good terms and enter into mature discussions even with those with whom I do not agree as an argument against me goes right to the core of what is wrong with your editing behaviour and philosophy. That you would choose to disregard the advice I have given you abut your behaviour in the past because I am not "uninvolved" is similarly disturbing. This is a clear case of battleground mentality where "those who aren't with me are against me" in your optics. This is not the way a collaborative encyclopedia works or can work. ·Maunus·ƛ·14:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Professor marginalia
I've been too busy in the last few weeks to edit or follow the latest developments closely, but these assurances that Feragho and Captain Occam can be viewed as two distinct and independent accounts are not credible. They are partners in real life, and the only involvement of Feragho's in these involved articles prior to arbitration was to show up out of nowhere to "vote" or otherwise lend support to Captain Occam in various disputes, with he himself showing up right behind her to pointedly underscore her support to lend weight to his position. This edit, for example, was made to Ferahgo at a time when she'd only eight edits total in the entire encyclopedia, 5 of them minor edits--none of the edits were yet in the field of race or intelligence. Prior to arbitration, Ferahgo's only editing related to the involved articles followed Captain Occam's addressing her as an involved editor on her talk page. Then for the next 6 months her only involvement was over the course of about 10 edits to lend him backup in a single article (Race and intelligence) and in dispute resolutions on various other boards. But during, and now following, the arbitration in which Captain Occam was ultimately banned, Ferahgo was taken brand-new interest in at least seven more race/intelligence related articles. One of them is Race and genetics, never before edited by Ferahgo, yet she writes, here of content that she "remembers being there last October" -- uncanny the déjà vu to one of Captain Occam's disputes there then. I'd have hoped that with the degree of disruptive gaming going on over the past year that arbitration would bring an end to it. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ferahgo-the fact that often I have other demands on my time does not render me an "inactive" editor who doesn't "care about the quality of the articles" or that I am concerned only about "continuing the petty drama" of the arb comm case. The arb comm was as much about ending "petty drama" as anything else. And I steer as far clear of "petty drama" as I can, but to justify spending time on the arbitration means I won't watch idly by when its outcomes completely unravel via gaming. This means I won't go without commenting should spouses, roommates, partners, parents, children, siblings, friends, co-workers and other "stand-ins" assume a curious and intense new interest for editing just as article bans go into effect. It's not me who is the source of the drama here. My efforts are focused here on ending it. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ferahgo 2: Re: WP:ROPE--a) It's an essay b) You're ignoring the section "When not to use" which advises not to make such concessions against "Banned users – users blocked by community discussion or ArbCom". You asked now why your past behavior is relevant--it's because your edits then were challenged as meatpuppetry, and you and Captain Occam variously deflected, rebuffed and even attacked those who revealed your closeness irl. Now that he is banned from editing those articles, you've redoubled your efforts to edit them in his absence, and the pattern repeats itself.
Because you continue to profess how remiss other editors are to doubt you, it's relevant to lay the story all out once again. You opened your accounts minutes apart, you edit from the same IP ranges, you came to the disputes following Captain Occam's recruitment, your entrée was limited to that of backing him up in disputes, and both you and he took subtle but conscious steps to "keep up appearances" of independence. When allegations of meatpuppetry were raised, you vanished for 6 months, only to resurface in support of Captain Occam against accusations of tag-teaming and SPA:[66] (Captain Occam was later to be officially sanctioned for those same abuses by the arb comm.) When your tiny edit history raised eyebrows then,[67] you quietly slipped away from the dispute and your editing of unrelated articles soon jolted, a tripling in just 2 weeks of your previous year's output. You then resumed backing up Captain Occam in disputes, essentially forcing other editors to take a closer look and probe deeper into the WP:MEAT question. Your support on Captain Occam's unblock request to Jimbo[68] prompted Hipocrite to question your intentions to self-disclose your relationship when backing up Captain Occam in disputes. Your reply, "I think it's excessive to mention it in every comment," was both disingenuous and dismissive of a legitimate concern--in fact you had never before mentioned it on the wiki until after he'd posed the question to you on your talk page, and even after you did do so you downplayed it as merely "knowing" him and "irrelevant". You also continued, "but I don't try to keep it a secret and will answer honestly if asked."[69] However several days later in yet another forum where you popped in to back him up, you were less than forthcoming again, forcing the issue one more time. When Hipocrite then asked you quite directly, you and Captain Occam both tried to elevate it as a personal attack and an "outing".[70][71] Much as you are now, claiming "harassment" by Wapondaponda.
Today you concede, "I am willing to admit that before arbitration I was not participating in these articles independently from Occam. When I commented on these articles at all I was following him around, watching what he was involved in." But this wasn't made clear when commenting on Captain Occam's behalf in content disputes, further exacerbating disruptions. You go on to say, "with Occam banned supporting him isn't acceptable, so in order to contribute here I need to stand on my own two feet." And as should have been clear to you from very early on, it was inappropriate not to be "standing on your own two feet" with each and every edit anywhere, anytime in the encyclopedia. The past year's efforts to dodge or diminish valid concerns about proxy editing, including attacks against those trying to pin down what's going on, will of course cast a certain light on your words and actions today. So the argument, "Yes, my past role was limited to being Captain's loyal helpmeet in the articles, but since he's been banned you are out of order to think that of me now" doesn't hold water with me. One reason things got so out of hand in the first place were dodgy shenanigans and skewed priorities, and I don't see how turning a blind eye now will shape things up. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Ferahgo 3: I think we're on opposite sides of a gulf here. From your point of view, Captain Occam's acknowledgment that you two "knew each other" in real life on Captain Occam's talk page entitled the two of you to put all suspicions and questions about this to bed once and for all, in any and all disputes in wikipedia, in all forums, for ever after. And you expect us to understand his words are on behalf of the both of you, end of subject, while all the rest his and your editing are to be viewed as "independent". From your point of view, our concern should be limited to whether or not you've been faithful to the letter of policy.
While from my point of view, these articles have been plagued by gaming for quite some time. Once meat-puppet concerns were raised both you and Captain Occam should have become well aware that your relationship was of valid concern. Rather than pushing back, you might have realized that you both need to explore your interests at wikipedia completely independently or be prepared to disclose your relationship to fellow editors when lending support to each other in articles or disputes. And to realize that one invites "prying" if they don't "get it" and press on. From my point of view, the concern is that you, like Captain Occam demonstrated to me when I first came to the dispute, fixate on how out-play policy, via hair-splitting comments and policy, and canvassing "back-up" to help you do so. And from my pov I've invested too much time to this dispute just to diagnose and document one aspect of the problem to justify watching it repeat itself right under my nose. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji
Comment by other editor WeijiBaikeBianji: this looks like a meat-puppet to me. Even though my user name is mentioned in this discussion, I somehow was not aware that this discussion was occurring. What I see on the article talk pages of several articles that are directly included in the recent ArbCom case discretionary sanctions is a pattern of editor conduct indistinguishable from Captain Occam's now occurring from the keyboard of Ferahgo the Assassin. Checking Ferahgo's contribs, it appears that her participation in race and intelligence topics far exceeds participation in paleontology topics, contrary to the advice she received from members of the Arbitration Committee. (And I note that several of the paleontology article edits consist of inserting statements from primary sources, perhaps unreplicated primary sources, rather than from Wikipedia preferred reliable secondary sources.) I see a lot of the same, old same-old that I saw before the decision in the recent ArbCom case. Assuming good faith, I'm happy to have any editor of any point of view request that editors refer to sources and back up content edits with citations to those sources. But I will not allow Wikipedia articles on the topics recently covered by the ArbCom case to become battlegrounds that keep us busier looking for phony "consensus" on the talk pages than doing substantive article edits based on recent, reliable secondary sources. The articles covered by the case have been in terrible shape for a long time because many POV-pushers who read blogs more than they read the professional literature refuse to believe what the current professional literature says and actively revert sourced content. The topic sanctions allow administrators to act with due discretion to keep single-purpose accounts from dominating those articles. I hope that administrators will not shy from using their mops to clean up the mess, so that an improved editing environment brings about much improvement in all the related articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up on disruptive edit by Ferahgo. Just today, Ferahgo made an edit [72] that reverted an edit of placing a highly reliable, well reviewed secondary source in a Further reading section (preparatory to using the source for article edits) and cleaning up the same article's external links section per WP:EL. Discussion of that series of edits can now be found on the article talk page, with participation by Ferahgo, me, an editor who participated in the recent ArbCom case (Maunus), and an editor unknown to me. I'm sure that Ferahgo considers her edit a good-faith effort to maintain what she regards as neutral point of view on Wikipedia. But after I spent time last week reviewing the external link policy (prompted by a question from another Wikipedian, as documented on my user talk page) and hours this week reading a lavishly documented source on the subject of the article in question (and other articles related to the ArbCom case), I can't help feeling that the edit was disruptive. Ferahgo pushed a point of view by that edit and did not uphold Wikipedia policy. Quite apart from the issue of meat-puppetry, the ArbCom decision was intended to leave in place a set of discretionary sanctions that would uphold Wikipedia policy and allow source-based improvements in the articles within the scope of the case. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Michael C. Price I get the impression that you haven't been following all the contribs of the various persons named here if you think the entire fuss is about that diagram. But while we are on the subject of what is "standard" in the literature, what sources do you recommend on the general subjects of anthropology, human biology, or race to show what current standard scholarly practice is in treating those issues? Perhaps before you see this reply, I will be traveling again to the largest academic research library in my state to pick up more books on those subjects. I am always eager to hear source suggestions from Wikipedians who know of reliable sources to share with other Wikipedians. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to question from Michael C. Price As also answered by Maunus in his comment space here, what can be misleading about that image is the context in which it is brought into an article. What I have thought is misleading about the image is the representation that it is the last word on a subject that has seen quite a bit of research since the book in which Cavalli-Sforza published the results summarized by the image. That is why I ask about sources: I am, thus far, not seeing the Cavalli-Sforza image used in standard secondary sources on the subject as a conclusive statement on human "race" groups. Quite the contrary, I have from the keyboard of Cavalli-Sforza himself rejections of the race concept as a scientifically valid concept; images and charts from a variety of authors, who disagree with one another in whole or in part, on lineage relationships of various human populations; and varied detailed maps of the distribution of human genes that show that genes under selection pressure can occur in more than one lineage group, even if neutral polymorphisms can distinguish lineages. The overall literature is much more up-to-date and much more nuanced than that image, which is why Cavalli-Sforza himself does not simply reproduce that image in his latest book (which I have at hand as I type this). -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful comments by Slp1. I see that Slp1 noticed, before I did, the ridiculous comment by Captain Occam here. Captain Occam, who was properly topic-banned after a lengthy Arbitration Committee case in which he had ample opportunity to demonstrate what he has to contribute to Wikipedia, has the gall to suggest that I might endanger the neutrality of point of view on Wikipedia if I proceed to edit boldly on the basis of reliable sources. I took care before I did many article edits at all to let other Wikipedians know about valuable sources and to solicit all of them to suggest further sources to me. I did that during the discussion of the Arbitration Committee case and I continue to do that. (Indeed, I specifically invited Ferahgo to recommend sources for the source list, and Slp1 seemed to think that that was a helpful suggestion.) I discuss a lot with other editors before I edit. My edit count statistics show that I post to article talk pages more than I post to articles themselves, to date, although now I hope to change that balance to having more article edits. I mentioned in the ArbCom case file that I agreed with RegentsPark that POV-pushing by single-purpose accounts was violating the core Wikipedia principle of neutral point of view. (As I recall, and as seems to be confirmed by the diff, RegentsPark made his remark while commenting on the editorial behavior of Captain Occam.) While the case was still being decided, in the case file in full view of the Arbitration Committee, I forthrightly announced that I intended boldly to fix problems in the articles within the scope of the case as soon as the case was decided. (Yes, you saw a link to WP:BEBOLD with different link text in that diff. I know what the rules are here.) I have "not yet begun to" do that, to quote John Paul Jones. The current condition of most of the articles in the scope of the ArbCom case is not neutral point of view, because the articles have been skewed by poor sourcing and tendentious editing for a very long time. I am agreeable to working tirelessly and boldly to clean up a mess that others made before I became a Wikipedian. I am confident that there is no doubt in the scholarly community, as there should also be no doubt in the Wikipedia editing community, that the point of view preferred by Captain Occam and by Ferahgo the Assassin (and relentlessly pushed by them into Wikipedia article text) is not a point of view that would look "neutral" or "balanced" to most persons literate in English and especially not to most persons who are familiar with the research on IQ testing. (IQ testing is a subject on which I will be giving a public workshop presentation at a statewide meeting next month, as I have before and as I will again in Illinois early next year). Since everything that is being said here is once again in full view of the Arbitration Committee, and because I am possibly still the newest Wikipedian here, I call on the onlookers to give me a reality check: is it wrong, after traveling to a major academic library to find good sources (as I do every Sunday) and after actually reading those sources (I read Cavalli-Sforza 1994 the year it was published, from cover to cover, and have followed his subsequent writings with great interest) to then edit Wikipedia articles according to my best understanding of what reliable sources say? Is there some kind of rule against that? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Maunus's comment about Muntuwandi (Wapondaponda), I respectfully disagree. I think Muntuwandi's conduct on these articles has been informed by sources, aimed at fulfilling core Wikipedia policies, civil and helpful to other editors, and specifically helpful to other editors. Maunus expressed a concern about Muntuwandi not drafting a lot of new material of his own, but I have found his deletions of POV-pushing statements from the articles to be some of the best editing the articles have received in the last few months. I know the professionally published sources. The articles currently suffer from bad violations of Wikipedia neutral point of view because they are very poorly sourced. It is at least as necessary to omit passages that put undue weight on minority positions as it is to add passages that update the articles based on the latest research. I have worked in editorial offices before in two different countries. One of the most essential skills of a professional editor is chopping out words that don't belong in a manuscript. Muntuwandi does that boldly but thoughtfully. I think most editors who have edited those articles in the last year will be happy to work with him, and I am confident he will be a net contribution to better articles on that always contentious topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Mathsci
Some weeks ago an arbitrator suggested that I should comment here.
Captain Occam has disclosed on wikipedia that he cohabits with Ferahgo the Assassin and that she is his current girlfriend. He himself edits very little at the moment (he is sporadically writing a race-related article in his user space). Ferahgo the Assassin's editing in articles/talk pages covered by Captain Occam's topic ban does seem to have taken on the character of his editing, with the subject of dinosaurs now secondary. There are some editing traits of hers that can only be explained by meatpuppetry, most significantly her attitude towards other wikipedians (Georgewilliamherbert & Dbachmann as administrative wikifriends, WeijiBaikiBianji & Muntuwandi as disruptive opponents).
In her statements above, Ferahgo the Assassin has presented with considerable determination a multitude of constantly changing excuses and justifications, some of them stretching the limits of credibility. At the same time she and Captain Occam have displayed a total failure to take any notice of very clear and helpful advice offered to them by arbitrators here and elsewhere. On balance all the information so far available suggests that Ferahgo the Assassin has adopted an editing strategy, worked out in consultation with Captain Occam, to aid him in circumventing his topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 05:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Occam's girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin continues to wage his BATTLES on wikipedia in an ever-widening set of articles, all covered by his topic ban, and against the same perceived opponents. [73][74] It seems essentially to be all she is doing on wikipedia at the moment. Captain Occam has revealed below that he engages in discussions with Ferahgo the Assassin concerning wikipedia and his topic ban. In view of that admission, the only reasonable presumption is that Ferahgo the Assassin's edits in the area of his topic ban are also the result of joint discussions between the pair of them. Both Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin have been offered ample opportunity to comply with suggestions of arbitrators over a prolonged period of time (five weeks), but have been unresponsive. Because there seems to be no prospect of voluntary compliance, the only remaining option seems to be a formal amendment of Captain Occam's remedy, extending his topic ban to Ferahgo the Assassin. Since Captain Occam has shown no sign of taking any responsibility for his actions, some form of additional sanction might also be appropriate for him. Mathsci (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Captain Occam's new statements above, it might be worth noting a prior statement that he left on Maunus' user talk page:[75]"I’m sorry to bother you about this. I don’t know if I’ve made this clear, but I find this situation extremely frustrating also, and not just because I can observe in person how Ferahgo is affected by it. I share your concern that with so few editors left who edit from the hereditarian perspective, there’s a danger that the neutrality of the articles might suffer as a result, and Ferahgo is pretty much the only one of these left who hasn’t either been topic banned or quit out of frustration. Muntuwandi’s recent behavior on these articles does not give me a lot of confidence that he and WeijiBaikeBianji will be able to keep them neutral if given free reign over them. I’m very worried about what will happen to the articles if these editors manage to get rid of the only remaining editor who disagrees with them."Mathsci (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by David.Kane
Although this debate does not involve me and I am topic banned in this area, MathSci's comments compel me to chime in.
1) Note Shell 's inadvertent (I hope!) mistake in describing Wikipedia:SHARE as "advis[ing] editors in this situation to treat edit warring and other restrictions as if they were a single account." But that is not what Wikipedia:SHARE says. Instead, "closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies such as edit warring as if they were a single account." (Emphasis added by me.) In other words, even though Occam is topic banned, that ban has no implications for Ferahgo. Restrictions placed on one account do not apply to the other account. There is all the difference in the world between restrictions and policies. (For the sake of argument, I assume that we all agree that Ferahgo and Occam are, in real life, two separate people. If Ferahgo were a sock-puppet then, obviously, restrictions which applied to Occam would apply to "her" as well.)
2) More productively, perhaps I can suggest a solution. We can all agree that Ferahgo's behavior (whatever legitimate complaints various editors may have about her) is not anywhere near as egregious as Occam's (or mine or MathSci's). Therefore, it makes no sense that she should receive as harsh a sanction as we (correctly) did. So how about probation? Or a one month topic ban, starting now? It seems unfair to Ferahgo that any restriction ever placed on Occam would apply to her as well. What if Occam were banned from Wikipedia completely? Would Ferahgo be sited-banned as well? That is not what Wikipedia:SHARE suggests. David.Kane (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as it pains me to suggest any type of sanctions for Ferahgo, I think that in general, some sort of sanction that’s less than a full topic ban is probably the best idea.
There are two lines of reasoning that need to be weighed against one another here. Because of Ferahgo’s close connection to me, it’s reasonable to be worried that at some point she’ll engage in the same sort of disruptive behavior for which I was topic-banned, even though there haven’t been any examples of this yet. But on the other hand, it seems completely counter-productive to ban an editor from a group of articles where they’re making useful contributions and not causing any disruption. Ideally, whatever solution ArbCom comes up with should be based on both of these concerns.
In terms of what’s best for the articles, probation looks to me like the best idea. It will ensure that Ferahgo doesn’t engage in the same behavior for which I was sanctioned—and if she ever does, the probation would very quickly result in a block or topic ban. But it also would not prevent her from participating constructively as long as that’s the only thing she’s doing. In fact, I would say that this situation is a near-perfect example of the situation in which WP:Probation is used: “Probation is usually used as an alternative to an outright topic ban in cases where the editor shows some promise of learning better behavior.” (Or perhaps in this case we should say, “shows some promise of continuing her existing good behavior.”)
In general, I would assume that the ultimate purpose of remedies imposed by ArbCom is to prevent disruption on the articles, so they should not extend beyond what’s necessary to prevent disruption. Is that an unreasonable assumption? --Captain Occam (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it for a while - and discussing it with Occam - I agree that the best solution is for probation. I would voluntarily consent to a probation lasting the term of Occam's topic ban. Odd as it may be I think this might improve things in general, since at the moment I can hardly make a single edit or comment on these articles without being accused of POV-pushing or disruption by Weiji and Muntuwandi. All of the other consistently involved editors - like Maunus, Aprock, Vecrumba, and Victor Chmara - seem to appreciate my contributions, which has kept me from getting too disheartened. But even for edits the majority finds helpful, these accusations have been obstructing legitimate content discussions and progress to the articles.
If I am placed on probation, it would be the job of an uninvolved admin to determine if I'm engaging in any policy violations. One reason this would be helpful is simply that it would hopefully mean Muntuwandi and Weiji no longer feel the need to accuse me of this in every discussion I'm involved in and constantly try to get me removed. If I really AM doing anything wrong, I'd also like that to be constructively pointed out by someone uninvolved so that I can fix my behavior. When I'm being accused of this incessantly by only two people, it's impossible for me to tell whether I'm really doing anything wrong. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WeijiBaikeBianji says I can't have been following the entire discussion; you're right. What I did was look at Occam's insertion of the above diagram (since it was mentioned in this discussion) and see that it was reverted with the comment: "removed misleading image". How is the image misleading? It looks pretty standard to me. That tells me that we dealing with a POV issue, dressed up as a conduct issue. --Michael C. Pricetalk17:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manus claims that the insertion of the diagram, which seems a long running bone of contention, mixes up "races" and "bio-geographical genetic clusters". This seems to miss the point that neither term was referenced in anyway in Occam's edit.
I would encourage everybody to look at the contenious edit and judge for themselves whether it merited removal on the grounds of being "misleading", and draw their own conclusions as to which side is being disruptive or POV pushing.
I understand Manus's point that it was more than this edit that was responsible for the original topic ban. But my point is that when a single informative edit, such as this is, is reverted so summarily, it is a sign that not all is well with the status-quo. --Michael C. Pricetalk18:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, you don't have to read a book before posting an image from it - all that matters is that the new content confirm to policy, be relevant etc etc, which it does. That the image was later used by another source (Jensen) that you happen to not like is irrelevant. Judge content by ... content. Not inferred intentions and guilt by association. --Michael C. Pricetalk10:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi's argument (now) is that drive-by readers might misunderstand the diagram at "race and intelligence", since "few readers seem to pay attention to the actual text in the article". In other words, no matter how it explained, he will object to it...... --Michael C. Pricetalk02:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As full disclosure, I should mention that I am one of the administrators who very strongly suggested that User:Ferahgo the Assassin should not directly edit the Race and Intelligence set of articles while Captain Occam was topic banned.[76] It appears the advice has not been heeded and we are here. My understanding is that a topic ban is put in place in part to help an editor disengage from a subject. Captain Occam's recent post above makes clear that this has not happened, and that he is as involved in scrutinizing the topic and its editors as he ever was. I cannot believe, given the detailed level of his interest and the relationship between them, that Ferahgo is a truly independent contributor here. It would have been preferable if she had accepted to limit herself voluntarily as requested, but since she hasn't, I believe that extending the topic ban to her is correct, and likely to help both of them to disengage from the issue. --Slp1 (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Occam. I think you miss my point; this post is a detailed list of complaints about the edits of other editors on articles from which you are topic banned. This is not the place to re-litigate the ArbCom decision or to seek admin enforcement; it is the place to discuss whether you and Ferahgo are truly independent editors or not. Your post has the curious effect of showing that you have not disengaged, and that it is all the more likely that the two of you can be considered a unit, discussing the latest WP goings-on over supper etc. Being a unit is not a bad thing of course, since it's a very good sign in a relationship when a couple support and uphold each other. But I also think it is better for Wikipedia, and for the two of you, to have a break from this topic. My personal advice would be for both of you to unwatchlist the articles; somebody else can worry about them while you are gone, exploring the world and the many other articles of WP. --Slp1 (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion
Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
I see little evidence that Ferahgo is a sockpuppet or otherwise acting in violation of policy; as has been pointed out, Ferahgo's primary editing interests to date seem to have revolved around obscure dinosaurs. If their presence becomes disruptive in the future, they can be dealt with by discretionary sanctions; I see no reason for us to presume wrongdoing at this point. Kirill[talk][prof]12:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The recent SPI case confirmed that Ferahgo and Captain Occam were related in a way that made the two technically indistinguishable and Ferahgo was advised that she should respect the topic ban; she ignored this conclusion. Given that Wikipedia:SHARE advises editors in this situation to treat edit warring and other restrictions as if they were a single account when they edit with the same objective (especially in controversial areas), I don't see why there is any question here. Of further concern is Ferahgo's contribution history, or frankly, the lack thereof. Of her 314 edits since she registered in 2006, more than 50 were comments to support Captain Occam in some dispute or against some sanction. Before the sanction, she only edited in the topic area to support Captain Occam on talk pages. Since the ban she's continued his arguments and in just the past three days has reverted material she (and Captain Occam) didn't agree with 3 times. Stick to the dinosaurs. Shellbabelfish19:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Occam - You should be well aware that I held this position long before this request even opened and warned both of you of the likely outcome if you chose this path. In fact, many editors (not just those you consider opponents) have brought this concern to both of you; the SPI should have made things quite clear. It's unfortunate that you both chose to push the limits this way instead of heading the advice you were getting, but here we are. Shellbabelfish01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On balance, the arguments that proxy editing of some sort is going on are much more persuasive than the denials and are a better fit with known facts and the applicable policy. I'd support a topic ban for Ferahgo. Roger Daviestalk17:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Occam. The point here though is that Ferahgo isn't a lone voice in this dispute. She has you by her side and you are as involved as those whose opinions you seek to have us exclude. Roger Daviestalk01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with those above, that this is a situation that needs to be eliminated because it's being used as a meatpuppetry/proxy editing setup. SirFozzie (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This arises from WP:AE#WeijiBaikeBianji, filed by Ferahgo the Assassin, who is currently subject to a topic ban in the R&I domain. I believe that the AE request is an attempt to lawyer around the topic ban, but other admins are divided on this, hence this request for clarification. To keep this simple, I would like to propose that ArbCom endorse the following statement: "An editor subject to a topic ban imposed by ArbCom or resulting from ArbCom discretionary sanctions may only file arbitration enforcement requests that fall into the domain of the topic ban, or comment on such requests, if there is a reasonable possibility that a resulting enforcement action will directly affect that editor." Such a statement would disallow this enforcement request, and it would also disallow the comments that Mathsci has made in the request. Note that the statement as framed would have a scope that goes beyond the R&I case.
Statement by WeijiBaikeBianji
Thanks to Looie496 for raising this issue and for the notice of this request to my talk page. One observation about the policy behind this request is that decisions in cases should generally allow for certainty of disposition and for repose of persons who were not parties to the case. (I have legal training and was once a judicial clerk for an appellate court and then a lawyer in private practice, so these sorts of policy considerations come to mind.) I certainly acknowledge the wikipedian's privilege of any other editor to ask me questions about my editing behavior and especially to insist that my edits and all article edits be verifiable and neutral in point of view. But once an editor is under a topic ban, it seems to me that there has already been a finding that that editor (we hope only temporarily) is misunderstanding what proper sourcing is or what neutral point of view is, so it seems best to hear primarily from editors who are not under such bans about fresh editing disputes on the same topic. Arbiter Carcharoth has pointed out that ArbCom decisions are meant to improve article text. It frustrates the purpose of the arbitration process to have content disputes continually relitigated in ArbCom rather than referred to article, user, and project talk pages for mutual discussion among editors who are not sanctioned. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Mathsci
I'm not quite sure why Looie496 has made this clarification request.
I will have to admit from the start that I am friendly with some members of ArbCom. I have twice communicated in private when irregularities have occurred connected with WP:ARBR&I. On both occasions the irregularities were not of my making, but I had what I perceived to be useful input to offer in discussions. Wikipedia processes are not covered by my voluntary but binding topic ban.
A member of ArbCom suggested I comment on the first occasion when the topic ban of Ferahgo the Assassin was under discussion (I made 3 postings). I have also had positive feedback about my comments this time, with no objection to what I wrote or the tone (I made only 2 postings).
My topic ban, by mutual consent, covers articles and their talk pages and any content discussion on wikipedia related to race and intelligence, broadly interpreted. It is not a ban that I will ever appeal. I would never remotely consider making any request on a noticeboard connected with this subject area.
But when irregularities in process are concerned that have nothing to do with content and are not of my making, I believe my input has been useful and is not discouraged by either administrators or arbitrators.
The way I understand this, every topic ban has a slightly different scope, and that scope is determined by the admin implementing the ban. In my case NuclearWarfare, the admin who topic banned me under the discretionary sanctions, did not intend for the scope of my topic ban to include preventing me from posting about this issue at AE. He has made this clear both when we were discussing his topic ban [77] and in his comments in the AE thread. [78] When he granted me this permission, he was aware of what conduct issues I intended to post about, since his suggestion that I post at AE was in response to me saying I wanted admin attention for these exact issues. Therefore, I don’t think I have violated my topic ban by posting about them there.
That said, if arbcom decides that from this point forward topic banned editors should never have the right to post AE threads like this, then I will accept that decision and will never do this again. However, if arbcom does decide this, this would be a new rule that didn’t exist before, so I don't think I should be punished for having not followed it.
In general, I’m also not sure it’s a good idea for individual admins to lose the power to choose the scope of topic bans they implement under discretionary sanctions. That is the effect that this proposal would have - it would mean that if at any point an admin wants to ban an editor from articles but not from AE, that would not be allowed because all topic bans automatically extend to AE also. This seems like it would go against the spirit of discretionary sanctions allowing admins to implement whatever type of sanction they think is appropriate.
Statement by Timotheus Canens
Topic bans are meant to get an editor to disengage from a topic area. I do not understand how allowing them to file reports related to the topic area serves that purpose. And I certainly do not see the "slew" of AE requests Shell is referring to. T. Canens (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tijfo098
While the report on AE was not actionable in an administrative way, I for one did not find it entirely without justification. It is a little weird that FtA is not allowed to comment in other venues because a post on WBB's talk page or even a RfC/U would have been more appropriate.
Statement by Captain Occam
I would appreciate it if ArbCom could clarify whether Mathsci’s comments in the AE thread are allowed under his topic ban, because what the rule is about this is something that affects me also. I’ve generally avoided commenting in threads like that one, because I was under the assumption that if the thread didn’t directly concern me and I hadn’t been given explicit permission for it by whoever topic banned me (the way Ferahgo was), participating in it would be prohibited by my topic ban. But Mathsci and I were both given the exact same type of topic ban in the arbitration case, so if participating in these threads is permitted under his topic ban, it’s presumably permitted under mine also. I’d like to know whether that’s the case, or whether neither of should be participating there.
Since none of the arbitrators seem to object to Mathsci's comments in Ferahgo's AE thread, and according to him some of the arbitrators have actually invited him to comment in this thread or similar ones, I'm going to assume that commenting in these threads is allowed in my case also. Arbitrators, please tell me and Mathsci otherwise if this isn't the case. At this point, I've done everything I can do to try and learn the answer to this: I've asked ArbCom about it in a request for clarification, and haven't received an answer.
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
I don't think there's any need for such a sweeping statement. While this may have been a disappointing use of AE by Ferhago, we don't generally prohibit editors, even those that are topic banned, from reporting others; this would certainly invalidate a slew of the recent reports on AE. Whether or not a report is productive, useful or "necessary" can be left up to the discretion of the admins responding. Especially in cases where discretionary sanctions are active, prohibiting an editor from making reports (if they prove to be disruptive) is well within the realm of administrator discretion. Shellbabelfish23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again T. Canens is right - the ones I was thinking of were people who have been admonished, warned or otherwise involved and ask to disengage but not specifically topic-banned. However, this case is a topic ban set by an administrator rather than ArbCom and should probably be addressed the same way. Shellbabelfish13:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Shell. Give some latitude at first, and take steps if repeated WP:AE requests fail and are clearly becoming disruptive. See also my comment elsewhere that topic-banned editors should in general let others comment, and should feel free to politely decline requests to comment themselves, citing a wish to remain disengaged from the topic area. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very reticent to curtail any editor's access to normal dispute resolution channels, even in the case where they would fall under an otherwise very wide topic ban. The rare cases of bad faith, or vexatious filings, can be handled as any other disruption without needing a sweeping statement that would prevent much genuinely needed appeals or enforcement. — Coren(talk)19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request for clarification: WP:ARBR&I/scope of topic ban of Mathsci
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
At the close of the case WP:ARBR&I, I readily agreed with arbritators on a topic ban by mutual consent, even after an arbitrator had suggested a shorter topic ban, which would have been over by now. I agreed to this because I no longer had any interest in editing content in the area of race and intelligence, broadly construed, and because, as I said during the case, my presence editing articles was wholly dispensable and completely desirable. My compliance and agreement with almost every point made by arbitrators significantly shortened the closing of arbitration. My topic ban was carefully formulated and did not apply to process pages and noticeboards.
During and after the close of arbitration, Captain Occam, joined by his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin, have militated to have sanctions imposed on other editors, notably WeijiBaikeBianji (talk·contribs) (and to a lesser extent Muntuwandi (talk·contribs)). Third parties have appeared on wikipedia in the past month or so, since a topic ban was imposed on Ferahgo the Assassin, whose sole purpose so far has been wikihounding and harassing WeijiBaikeBianji. I have communicated off-wiki with arbitrators about some of these issues, in particular Shell Kinney and Newyorkbrad, which are violations of the topic bans of Captain Occam and Ferhago the Assassin. On specific occasions it has been suggested that I contribute to arbitration noticeboards. I have additionally been asked asked whether information I have provided can be passed on to other arbitrators.
I have no views on the editing of WeijiBaikeBianji. I made a brief statement containing only one very general piece of constructive advice on methods of editing and adding sources that would apply to any editor.[79] Since the close of arbitration, Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin's activities in militating have not declined and the reports I recently made to WP:AE reflect this renewed activity. This has resulted in a logged warning for Woodsrock (talk·contribs), for personal attacks, and a block for Ferahgo the Assassin (talk·contribs) for tracking his edits. In my perception both incidents formed part of a campaign of harassment and wikihounding of WeijiBaikeBianji. Another example are these kind of edits by a newly arrived editor. [80], [81][82]
I am requesting that arbitrators please clarify the particular nature of my topic ban by mutual consent and whether it should in future apply to process pages, for which there has been no indication so far. Please could arbitrators also provide guidance for administrators overseeing the arbitration noticeboards as to whether they may change the nature of carefully formulated topic bans of this kind.
Response to Newyorkbrad and Shell Kinney
Thank you for these kind comments. Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned, I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area.
Out of process extension of topic ban by EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens
According to this diff [83] these administrators, without any clear remit or justification, claim to have extended my topic ban in some imprecise way to policy pages. Please could arbitrators explain whether this is permissible and could these administrators please explain their reasoning a little more carefully.
Further comments
I have made two requests on ArbCom noticeboards since WP:ARBR&I was closed on August 26 2010:
Nov 22: about Captain Occam and possible meatpuppetry, a somewhat complex situtation. The result was that Woodsrock received a logged warning from MastCell. I had corresponded prior to this with members of ArbCom.
Nov 26: Ferahgo the Assassin blocked by MastCell for contravening her topic ban.
ArbCom carried out a checkuser on the two users mentioned above. From what I understand ArbCom is concerned about issues connected with meatpuppetry. Several administrators made comments about that in the first request. After the extension of the topic ban to cover RfCs was announced, Ferahgo the Assassin posted five times to the RfC/U in question: [84][85][86][87][88]
I mentioned this to EdJohnston in a recent email. It seems unlikely that ArbCom would impose restrictions on participating in RfC/Us. In almost all circumstances they concern issues of user conduct not content editing. My outside view in this particular RfC/U, which does not conform to standard RfC/Us, was anodyne and commonplace, having no relation whatsoever to any kind of topic ban.[89] I have also contributed to the RfC/U on YellowMonkey and will continue to do so while views are still being posted. If any administrator attempted to block me for doing so, I assume that they would risk being desysopped by ArbCom.
Additional statement about meatpuppetry
Details of another account, recently active in this area since the topic ban of Ferahgo the Assassin, have been sent in private to a member of ArbCom, who has passed on the details to other arbitrators. This additional evidence, found completely by accident, seems uncontestable at the moment.
Reply to Timotheus Canens
Many thanks for your statement. I had assumed this in the interim. I was not intending to comment in the RfC/U any further, even if I agree with some of the subsequent statements. I sent a wiki-email to EdJohnston concerning WP:AE and will forward that email to you. Apologies that I did not do so before.
Comment on Captain Occam's additional statement
This is directly related to the recent information that members of ArbCom have been sent in private. Both EdJohnston and Timotheus Canens are now aware of the issue. I have no complaint at all about the advice offered on WP:AE, which seems extremely sensible.
Response to arbitrators
Many thanks to arbitrators for suggesting (unexpectedly!) that my topic ban could formally be lifted. If other arbitrators agree that my name could be removed from the list of those under personal sanctions from ArbCom, I would adhere to my voluntary undertaking never again to edit articles or their talk pages related to race and intelligence, broadly construed.
Response to Vassyana
I do not understand the question as posed. I've made a statement to Vassyana by email. Is it possible for him to reformulate the question a little more carefully in the light of my message?
Second response to Vassyana
if the topic is lifted I would continue to be completely disengaged from the articles and their talk pages. Otherwise I think that the response of Shell Kinney covers everything very accurately.
Third response to Vassyana
Yes :) although moot since this request has already been closed
Statement by Captain Occam
Since this thread discusses both me and Ferahgo, I think Mathsci should have notified us about it, but now that I’ve found it I’ll offer a statement here.
As someone who was accused of meatpuppetry in one of Mathsci’s recent AE threads, I beg to differ with the assertion that Mathsci’s participation in process pages has been completely harmless. I would recommend that arbitrators read this thread before concluding that Mathsci is correct to claim this. Apparently Mathsci is convinced that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are both meatpuppets of mine, and this has resulted in a week-long AE thread, although almost none of the people commenting (and no admins) have believed that there’s a good reason to assume this. Even so, Mathsci is continuing to claim that I am violating my topic ban (as in the statement above), and bringing up this accusation in unrelated discussions where the accounts that he suspects of being meatpuppets have participated. (Such as here). I have neither been blocked nor warned for violating my topic ban since the end of the arbitration case, and as far as I know Sightwatcher and Woodsrock are just a pair of new uses who happen to disagree with Mathsci (although I admit it wouldn’t hurt for Woodsrock to improve his civility), and for Mathsci to keep bringing up this accusation against us is very irritating.
More importantly, dealing with these accusations first from Muntuwandi and now from Mathsci has made it very difficult for me to work on the other articles that I’d like to. My style of editing is that I prefer to fully focus on one article at a time, and not allow myself to be distracted by anything else until I’m reasonably satisfied with it, but this requires me not having to constantly deal with accusations being made against me. During the three months since the end of the arbitration case, there has only been around one month during which I was left alone sufficiently to do this, during which I wrote the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case article. I had been hoping to get started on my planned rewrite of the William Beebe article over the past week—I’ve now done all of the research that I need to for it—but while Mathsci is continuing to badger me, that’s not possible.
As can be seen from the proposed decision page before Mathsci volunteered to be topic banned by consent, when he agreed to this the arbitrators were already voting in favor of him receiving a topic ban identical to the one received by me and David.Kane, and opposing the lesser remedy for him. The only reason Mathsci received a topic ban that was voluntary rather than involuntary is because he volunteered for this four days before the case closed. The “Review of topic bans” decision also states that applications for topic bans to be lifted will not be considered less than six months before the close of the case. To make an exception to this in Mathsci’s case because his topic ban was voluntary would send a message that any time an editor is clearly going to be sanctioned in an arbitration case, he can avoid being subject to some aspects of the ruling by volunteering to receive the sanction that arbitrators are already voting for. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
Although it’s correct that Mathsci is no longer participating in the RFC, he’s still using unrelated fora to snipe at the people who express disagreement with him there. [90][91] Is Mathsci’s participation in discussions like that one really helpful, and something that ought to be encouraged? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Mathsci
By any objective standard, it’s disruptive for you to hijack an unrelated discussion in order to accuse an administrator who disagreed with you in the RFC of “silliness and absurdity”. I’m obviously not a party to your private communications with ArbCom, and neither are the admins who will be closing the AE thread, but I don’t see how any kind of private communications with ArbCom would justify acting this way. You’ve made it clear what your excuse about this is—that all of what you’ve been doing recently is acceptable in light of your private correspondence, but that since you can’t actually tell anyone else about the content this correspondence, the admins closing the AE thread will have to just take your word for this. You’ve been in private correspondence with ArbCom for around two weeks now. Isn’t it a little inappropriate to use this secrecy as a one-size-fits-all excuse for whatever you want to do in the meantime? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions about EdJohnston’s new sanctions
I don’t think it’s a bad idea in principle to extend topic bans to all discussions related to the articles in question, and I know this has been done with topic bans from other arbitration cases. But I have some concerns about the process by which EdJohnston made a decision in this particular case. When I discussed this with EdJohnston in his user talk, he said that I should ask ArbCom about it in this thread, so I’m doing so. The thread where I explained my concerns to him is here. Since EdJohnston has suggested that ArbCom examine this situation, I think arbitrators should read the thread there.
As I stated there, EdJohnston originally suggested in the AE thread that this expansion of topic bans from the R&I case be extended for Mathsci as well as me and Ferahgo, because he and Timothy Canens both felt that all three of us have contributed to the continued conflict over these articles. Mathsci subsequently contacted both of these admins privately via e-mail, and shortly thereafter, EdJohnston and Timothy Canens decided to sanction me and Ferahgo but not Mathsci. No other admins commented in the discussion about this. As far as I know, after EdJohnston’s original proposal to sanction all three of us, the only thing that changed about the situation was Mathsci e-mailing him. (Unless you count Mathsci’s new comments directed at Cirt, but those would argue in favor of him being included in the additional sanctions, not against this.)
In the discussion in his user talk, EdJohnston has said that his decision in the AE thread was not influenced by Mathsci’s e-mails. He also said in this comment there that once Mathsci began e-mailing him, it would have been a good idea for him to close the AE thread with no action, in order to avoid the appearance of being influenced by private correspondence. But even though EdJohnston clearly agrees that it would not have been appropriate for him to let e-mails from one of the involved parties in an AE thread influence his decision there, he has not been willing to explain what other than Mathsci’s e-mails caused him to change his mind about his initial proposal to sanction all three of us equally.
I consider this a problem for two reasons. First, even though EdJohnston is basically agreeing that it might have been a better idea for him to close the thread with no action in order to avoid the appearance of being influenced by private correspondence, he is not willing to do anything to reverse the fact that he’s created that impression. He’s unwilling to reverse the decision he made there, and he’s also unwilling to explain what caused his reversal of opinion about sanctioning all of us equally. And second, according to this decision from a past arbitration case, EdJohnston has a responsibility to explain why he chose to sanction me without sanctioning Mathsci. EdJohnston has not explained this, despite my asking him about it several times in his user talk. According to this arbitration principle, if EdJohnston was not prepared to justify the reason for this decision in public, he should not have made it. (And as stated in the comment that I linked to, EdJohnston seems to agree that perhaps he should not have made this decision, but he’s still not willing to undo it.)
Can ArbCom clarify what’s the appropriate course of action here? This is the first time I’ve ever had an admin sanction me and then later express uncertainty over whether it might have been a better idea to take no action, while still being unwilling to reverse their decision. --Captain Occam (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by VsevolodKrolikov
I'd like the ban to include RfCs connected to the topic, broadly construed. I struggle to see how the involvement of any of these three editors at the RfC concerning user:WeijiBaikeBianji is not going against the purpose of the topic ban. I also think that MathSci's repeated allegations that the RfC has been instigated by the other two need to stop. There is no evidence for this that I have seen, and it heightens tension when all the active editors in the area want WBB to do is WP:HEAR the concerns of other editors, and not edit against consensus or be "bold" when it's really unwise to be. RfCs are not there to enforce sanctions, and we are not "reporting" WBB, but trying to bring him into a better mode of editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Shell Kinney You don't think the repeated allegations of meatpuppetry are at all problematic? The calling for an AE enforcement in what looks rather like a response to a genuine RfC, on fairly flimsy grounds? I have to disagree with you that his involvement has been entirely benign. I simply don't see the need for topic banned people to be involved in the RfC. RfCs don't hand out sanctions. They're meant to be attempts to sort out problems in an area without resort to sanctions. It shouldn't happen with topic banned editors snipping from the sidelines trying to influence how people edit in the topic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Professor Marginalia I find your statement somewhat contradictory. You emphasise how MathSci has only been civil, yet you think the claims of Captain Occam instigating interference are not justified. Civil accusations are still accusations, and the way that they seemed to rope in more than just these two editors raised tensions. My own feeling getting involved in all of this is that far too many people were just too jumpy. What do we have? One uncivil editor who got blocked without any complaints, and another who has accepted - albeit grudgingly, that the RfC should come to an end - an RfC suggested by an admin. MathSci also endorsed the statement "This RfC seems to be ideologically motivated, I think you're hoping for ArbCom to overreact and hand out a topic ban. Do try proper dispute resolution rather than bringing out the big guns to get people banned", an aggressive, accusatory statement that certainly seemed unnecessary. (Remember, it was an admin who suggested RfC as the way forward in the dispute). MathSci of course wasn't the only endorser - the jumpiness seems more widespread than that. "Suspicion" has been used a few times here to imply guilt on the part of the suspected. There's communication going on off-wiki with arbcom that we're not all party too; dark hints about what might be found regarding meat puppetry also haven't helped. Having someone whose only role is to "sniff out socks and trolls" sounds all very nice. The thing is, even if there are no witches, having a witchfinder general around the place doesn't make for a happy community. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Tijfo098
The constant stream of administrative complaints from topic banned users is a proxy way of influencing articles in this area. The single-purpose accounts is probably another. Presumably NYB & Shell intend to carve a "whistleblower" role for Mathsci, who will exclusively deal with filing administrative requests in this topic area from now on, in contrast to the other topic banned users who, by emerging AE consensus, aren't going to be allowed to do this anymore. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Timotheus Canens
I remain of the view that input by topic-banned editors in topic-related processes, including DR, is neither necessary or helpful in general, nor useful in this case. All it seems to accomplish is to encourage the topic-banned users to continue to snipe at each other and watch the topic area closely, personalizing the disputes further and fostering battleground behavior, instead of properly disengaging. The fact that no admin was inclined to address the bulk of Mathsci's most recent enforcement request before it was archived for the first time is telling. T. Canens (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: In case it isn't clear: so far no one has purported to actually expand your topic ban. Admin comments at AE are not sanctions until and unless they are acted upon, by means of a notification on user talk, logging at the case page, and so on; and as long as WP:ARBR&I#Discretionary sanctions has not been vacated, administrators have the remit to impose sanctions they deem necessary and appropriate. T. Canens (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Professor marginalia
The ambiguities in arb comm's sanctions and/or advice only inspired Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin to explore all manner of alternatives to influence the articles *besides* directly editing them after their topic bans, including the one-sided schmoozing and prospecting for proxy edits on user talk pages. The both of them tune out what they don't want to hear, so hints and fuzzy lines merely open doors to crazy-making. For their own sakes they should be given bright white boundary lines.
Mathsci's continued involvement seems to have limited itself to sniffing out socks and trolls, which have been springing up like mushrooms. It's a delicate balance - between WP:BITE and WP:DUCK. But he's not shooting wildly - his targets (rightly or wrongly) fit the profile of socks (new and sleepers) - and he's got a lot of company sharing his suspicions. I'm suspicious too--we're seeing a rash of newly hatched newbies who are just way too comfortable with wp, with policy, editing tools, userboxes, with template and article creation, with subscription only access to professional journals used in references, and several (most bizarrely) adopting a peculiarly skewed interest in the tedious arbitration conducted months before they registered. Off-site recruitment was an objection raised against some of the now topic banned users during the arbitration. Despite sharing some of his suspicions, I myself wouldn't go so far as Mathsci to blame Captain Occam of instigating here. Yes, there is a history, a pattern, but for me I know that the editing of articles with kinds of back-page baggage as these involved articles have inherited can get derailed by juvenile hijinks and intrigues pointing in any number of directions, always at the expense of those focused on the "substance" in disputes.
With that said, I really don't see that mathsci's involvement has been disruptive. He's been civil-magnanimous even. I generally try to "tune out" or wp:DENY those I suspect of being trolls, socks or proxies--but I realize they are disruptive and somebody needs to meet them head on. Since the accusations against him he acknowledged when he voluntarily imposed (later ratified by arb comm) his own topic ban narrowly focused on incivility, I again come back to--I don't see where he's being uncivil. In other words, I think the disruptions were already there--Mathsci's involvement simply forced attention on them via the dispute channel or WP styled "chain of command". Professor marginalia (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to VsevolodKrolikov: Let me clarify that I do think Captain Occam has instigated interference--but I can't say he's the mastermind responsible for socks and meatpuppets. And I disagree that Mathsci's accusations have "roped" anybody here-others have been posting these allegations weeks before he weighed in. WBB inherited three newly registered antagonists and a fourth whose account was inactive for years at the exact moment his old one, Ferahgo the Assassin, is delivered a topic ban. Just one week after benign disagreement[92] between the two following his first and (at the time) only edit to a race/intelligence related article and Sightwatcher is backing Ferahgo against WBB over on AE. There's no "witch hunt" here. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by EdJohnston
Please see the result of a request at Arbitration Enforcement. Wider topic bans were imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. For convenience the Sanction portion of the AE is reproduced in the box below:
Sanction per the recent AE request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sanction
Under the discretionary sanctions that are authorized for Race and Intelligence
Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.
The following is advice, and it is not compulsory
Captain Occam and Ferahgo are advised not to make enforcement requests at AE that concern R&I where no question about their own editing is on the table.
Mathsci is advised to limit his new filings about R&I at AE in the future, especially when no question about his own editing is on the table. (This advice will no longer apply if Arbcom decides to lift his topic ban from R&I).
Mathsci is welcome to continue making reports at SPI, even when he is reporting socks that may be active on R&I.
No action taken regarding David.Kane et al
David.Kane hasn't been much involved with R&I since the case closed. There seems no need to change his topic ban.
Mikemikev is out of the picture since he is under an indefinite block for pretty bad stuff, including nasty sockpuppetry.
This thread was closed with no sanctions on Mathsci. Obviously Arbcom can make a decision to lift Mathsci's ban if they want to. The AE request mentioned the behavior of two new editors who have recently become active on R&I, and might possibly be socks:
Woodsrock has made some personal attacks, and was notified of the R&I discretionary sanctions by MastCell on 22 November. He has not edited Wikipedia since then. SightWatcher seems to be more of a good-faith editor, and I don't see any misbehavior yet that would justify notification under the R&I sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe that, with the closing of the AE request without any change in the scope of Mathsci's topic ban, the main reason for Mathsci to seek a clarification here has gone away. My own opinion is that the strengthened sanction on Captain Occam and Ferahgo will help to reduce the unneeded process activity around Race and intelligence. The closure of the AE request does reflect a lesser concern about Mathsci's process activities around R&I (and those of David.Kane) than those of the two others. I can think of some reasons why Arbcom might want to continue their review of Mathsci's clarification request anyway:
If they believe it is time to lift Mathsci's topic ban, as suggested by one arb.
If they think that sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry around Race and intelligence are significant and require their attention. If so, then the need to handle confidential information might be a reason for the further study to take place within Arbcom rather than at AE. This clarification request could serve as a dialog to receive input from the community regarding possible violations of WP:SOCK. At present we know little (except for what Mathsci has said in various requests) about the status of Arbcom's review of the possible meatpuppetry. We have heard that a checkuser was run, presumably at the request of the arbs and not per SPI, regarding Woodsrock and SightWatcher. I asked this question of Captain Occam on my user talk: "I would welcome any clarification you can give as to whether you think SightWatcher or Woodsrock could be anyone you know personally or have communicated with electronically". He replied that that he had sent email to Shell Kinney. This does suggest that at least some of the arbs may be interested in pursuing this question. EdJohnston (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Xxanthippe
I find the extent of alleged private e-mailing in this case to be disturbing. Although I expect it does not breach the rules, it gives the impression, true or false, of backstairs cronyism. Disciplinary matters of this nature should be conducted in a completely transparent manner. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Requested clarification from Vassyana
I would ask the Arbitration Committee to briefly review two AE threads: this thread discussing multiple editors and this recent appeal by Captain Occam. Could MathSci and ArbCom please note some specificity regarding involvement insofar as complained areas? I, as an administrator currently active on AE, would like some bright line clarification. I want a nice clear line drawn between mudslinging/battling and useful good faith assistance with disruption. If this is not an all or nothing disengagement, I want to know the exact limits of that something explicitly in a short statement. It will cut through a major portion of noise and answer a major, recurring point. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that MathSci will be disengaged, voluntarily, from content discussions in the area. He is advised to exercise due caution the same as any other involved party, but may be involved in other processes and is not restricted or pledged from doing so. Is that correct? (I'm not trying to be dense. I'm just trying to make sure it is explicitly clear.) Vassyana (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
Awaiting statements. I am specifically open to the possibility of lifting Mathsci's topic-ban at this time, to avoid disputes about its precise borders, given his statement that in any event he does not intend to return to editing the articles themselves. It may also be that we need to review the behavior of various editors on these articles since the case closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana - I apologize, but I've read your request through a few times and I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Which participation by whom in what areas? (Or in other words, would you be so kind as to try explaining it a different way?) Shellbabelfish20:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. If the topic ban is lifted, there wouldn't appear to be any bar to him participating in dispute resolution or AE reports, though clearly he's an involved editor for purposes of discussions related to the Race and Intelligence topic area/case. Does that answer what you were asking? Shellbabelfish21:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Vassyana: My hope would be that Mathsci have as little to do with AE as possible. He has walked away from editing articles within the topic and leaving AE behind would be an excellent next step in putting this completely behind him. I do not believe, as a general principle, that it's particularly helpful for former arbitration participants to involve themselves in AE as it only perpetuates irreconcilable differences. This view may not be entirely shared by my colleagues. Rogertalk22:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Old ANI threads
I wanted to check something in one of the old ANI threads related to this long-closed case, but found they weren't linked from the customary "prior DR" section of the request page. For reference, the independent ANI sub-pages were:
Captain Occam is site-banned from wikipedia for a period to be determined by ArbCom. The topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin could be extended to the two users privately mentioned in evidence to ArbCom.
Statement by Mathsci
Members of ArbCom have been aware for some time of ongoing issues of meatpuppetry following the topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and later on Ferhago the Assassin, per WP:SHARE. Evidence has been provided privately to ArbCom about two users associated off-wiki with both Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin.
At the end of January, unprompted, Captain Occam's editing on wikipedia entered a new stage of disruption. Members of ArbCom are already aware of the public letter written under his real name to the Economist. He has used this letter on wikipedia as a springboard to reopen the closed case WP:ARBR&I and renew allegations on wikipedia that have not been accepted by ArbCom. Captain Occam appears to be fanning the flames in several venues, entirely against the spirit of his topic ban. His edits at the moment suggest that, not only is he still in conflict with users previously involved in WP:ARBR&I but no longer active on the articles, but that he is in conflict with ArbCom itself. He has not moved on from the ArbCom case, nor does he seem to take any responsibility for his own actions.
Previous procedural disruption occurred in December when ArbCom had already voted to lift my topic ban on their own initiative. In these circumstances, and in view of his lack of openness in addressing the outstanding issues of meatpuppetry, even when questioned by arbitrators, some form of site-ban unfortunately now seems necessary. Diffs can be provided on request, but almost all recent non-article space postings are relevant. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I am referring to what Captain Occam has written on wikipedia, not what was in the letter to the Economist. The publication of the letter has been used as a pretext for making distressing statements on wikipedia, some concerning me, which appear to contravene Captain Occam's extended topic ban, or at least the spirit of the ban. On User talk:Jimbo Wales, Captain Occam stated that the submitted letter contained a reference to Varoon Arya and the claimed circumstances under which he stopped editing. Captain Occam explained that that part of the letter was not published. The passage he mentioned is an unambiguous reference to this part of Captain Occam's evidence in WP:ARBR&I and concerned only me; those claims were not accepted by arbitrators. Captain Occam's initiation of a discussion on that point out of the blue seems disruptive. He has made further statements which also do not tally with the ArbCom findings here. I am upset that he mentioned my name, when there was no reason (see below). The events that led up to the ArbCom case had no particular logic: misjudgements and serious failings occurred which were accurately pinpointed by members of ArbCom; their findings and remedies appeared to resolve matters in a completely satisfactory way, at least as far as I was concerned. I have only praise for the way every arbitrator handled things.
Following the close of the case, however, Captain Occam has firstly attempted to get his girlfriend to edit on his behalf and then, when that failed, they jointly brought in at least two other friends, whose real life identities are known to ArbCom and who have been editing R&I-related pages fairly recently. The discussions that Captain Occam has started at the moment seem equally unhelpful. If they were general and intended to improve wikipedia that would be fine; but the starting point was the ARBR&I case and repeatedly users and past events that should absolutely not be discussed are mentioned. In the statement in the diff above, Captain Occam wrote (I think to Ludwigs2 amongst others), "You probably remember the way this went when we were dealing with Mathsci’s personal attacks last spring. Some of the comments in question were completely obvious and clear-cut violations of WP:NPA, and ArbCom eventually agreed with us about that, but every time this issue was brought up at AN/I most of the people there ended up supporting Mathsci regardless, and it was impossible to find a sysop who was willing to do anything about how he was acting. How can we be confident that this same situation won’t arise when someone is trying to report a popular sheriff who’s abused his power?" Surely sanctions were intended to prevent exactly statements of that nature being made. My name was brought up when it had no relevance to the discussion. That kind of behaviour is not very different from the accusations that Captain Occam made about Roger Davies just before Christmas, also on User talk:Jimbo Wales, just after the vote to lift my topic ban. Roger had proposed the motion and I think Captain Occam was suggesting that the proposal was out of order because he suspected I had influenced Roger behind the scenes. I would understand Newyorkbrad's point if Captain Occam had been talking about someone other than me; but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
I was unsure how to deal with the incidents described above: because of private information, the issues of meatpuppetry (the details of which have been passed on to ArbCom) could only be dealt with by ArbCom.
Captain Occam officially invited Ludwigs2 to comment here [95] having added his name to the list of parties. [96] Why he did he add Ludwigs2?
Zarboublian, editing after a month's absence, is very probably an alternative account of Quotient group, himself an alternative account of A.K.Nole, formerly editing as The Wiki House (with Kenilworth Terrace and Groomtech); he is now in a slightly different geographic location in the UK. I discussed this about a month ago with Shell Kinney. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from stalking me on several wikipedia pages, Zarboublian made the error of making an edit to back up Kenilworth Terrace on an otherwise completely obscure article. [97][98] They concerned this sequence of edits. [99][100][101][102] His latest posting seems to be an admission of guilt. His demeanour and editing patterns are indistinguishable from those of A.K.Nole/Quotient group. [103][104] Here is yet another of his sockpuppet accounts [105]. Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shell Kinney has confirmed that Zarboublian is an alternative account of A.K.Nole, who was formally banned from interacting with me. Mikemikev, currently site-banned by ArbCom and also indefinitely banned by the community, has just made a contribution as 212.183.140.52 using a vodafone mobile access account. Both their contributions have some similarity with those of Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another IP sock 207.203.80.20 has been trolling this page, undoubtedly Mikemikev. (My talk page is semiprotected for that reason.) As far as Xxanthippe's remarks about "obsessive stalking" are concerned, that is what A.K.Nole (Zarboublian) was banned from doing a year ago. Best not to use these terms in the wrong way, because of some of old grudge. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe has written that she thinks that the above comment "implies" that she is a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole. That is a totally incorrect misreading. Off-wiki Shell Kinney has very kindly dealt with A.K.Nole's wikistalking over a long period of time. Mikemikev' postings through the ipsock 207.203.80.20 [106] have continued on User talk:Newyorkbrad. (Mikemikev self-identifies himself by referring to previous sockpuppet postings made by him using a mobile vodafone account in the UK.) Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More diffs of Captain Occam's comments
on User Talk:RegentsPark[107]"What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in this comment. Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely." This was written in response to me suggesting to Captain Occam that he should move on and not discuss the case. Instead he make the unequivocal statement that I was treated in an unduly lenient way by ArbCom and administrators.
in his first comment about the letter tot he Economist [108] on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Captain Occam wrote, "The user I was referring to is user:Varoon_Arya, and my letter is summarizing the reason for quitting the project that he gave in this comment." As explained above, in his evidence to WP:ARBR&I, Captain Occam blamed me for that. In my perception much of that post was an attempt to re-open matters which should have remained closed following the ArbCom case, and concerning me in particular.
here [109] Captain Occam reverted a comment I made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. When I restored the comment, Captain Occam wrote,[110]"Also, I would appreciate it if someone could do something about personal attacks in this thread. I have a problem with Mathsci’s suggestion that I attempted to commit libel in my letter to the Economist, and that this is the reason why my letter was edited before publication. If anyone actually believes this, I guess I’d be willing to post the un-edited version of my letter on-wiki, so that others can see that this assertion is false." He claimed that my post was a personal attack and that something should be done about it. Cool Hand Luke corrected Captain Occam fairly soon.[111] This misrepresentation by Captain Occam of others, of himself, of arbitrators, of administrators, of the outcome of the ArbCom case, has occurred frequently in interactions with arbitrators, in particular Roger Davies and Shell Kinney. Here is the thread on User talk:jimbo Wales where Captain Occam repeatedly made unfounded accusations about Roger Davies and a claimed friendship with me: apparently this was based on idle speculation, hearsay and tittle-tattle coming from Ludwigs2. As Roger Davies wrote: "Close personal friend", been in touch "regularly", "apparently known Mathsci for a few years". It's all completely untrue. The thread also contains references to the two meatpuppet accounts. Shell Kinney interacted with Captain Occam on that topic. Those two users, one of whom is not particularly old, made a series of mistakes which allowed their accounts to be identified. Editing as a WP:TAG TEAM was precisely what was criticized in the findings of fact on three of those sanctioned under WP:ARBR&I. Captain Occam is the user who appears to have problems with openness and the inappropriate use of friends on wikipedia, not Roger Davies and not me. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2's comments
I left a link in bold above to the discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales that took place a week before Christmas. There Shell Kinney quoted a statement by Ludwigs2 on wikipedia:(od)Erm, you did notice that Ludwigs2 said "Mathsci may have friends on the arbitration committee (I don't know if that's true or if that's just another elements of Mathsci's preening bluster)". Since that's a rather vague insinuation which he admits to not knowing the truth of coupled with a personal attack thrown in at the end by someone who's been in repeated disputes with Mathsci, do you think it's possible that there isn't really anything to the accusation? Shell babelfish 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Captain Occam
I need to make it clear what’s happened here. The Economist published a letter from me which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name, and suggesting some possible reforms in Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process. Since the reforms I had in mind could only be implemented by the board of trustees, I brought up my letter in Jimbo Wales’ user talk to make sure he was aware of it. My initial post in Jimbo Wales’ user talk also did not mention the R&I case by name, although it referred to one editor (Varoon Arya) who had been involved in it. Jimbo Wales made it clear that he thought this was an issue worth discussing ([112], [113]) and Cool Hand Luke appeared to think so also. ([114][115]). I think it’s fairly clear that none of this, at this stage, was a violation of my topic ban.
After I had started this thread, several other past participants in the R&I case noticed either my letter or the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, and figured out that the R&I case was what I was referring to. It’s not hard to figure out, since that’s the only arbitration case I’ve been directly involved in. Two of them (Mathsci and Muntuwandi) showed up in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk challenging me about specifics, and a third (Slrubenstein) made a pair of personal attacks against me in someone else’s user talk. (The attacks have now been deleted using RevDel, so I can’t link to the diffs.) Before these editors began challenging me, I’d had no prior contact with any of them in the past month.
The real mistake I made here was a lack of foresight. Even though my initial statement in Jimbo Wales’ user talk did not violate my topic ban or refer directly to any of these editors, I should have predicted that they would view it as an invitation to engage me in further discussion about the R&I case. That said, I need to emphasize that my intention was not to continue this conflict, and I had no involvement with Mathsci, Muntuwandi or Slrubenstein over this issue until they chose to become involved in it themselves.
I would still like to be able to work towards improving Wikipedia’s dispute resolution system, if there’s a way for me to do that without it being interpreted as continuing the R&I conflict. I am open to advice from arbitrators about whether that’s possible or not, and if ArbCom decides that it isn’t, I’ll stay out of discussions about this from now on. Maunus has offered to become my mentor, which is something else I’m willing to accept if ArbCom decides it’s appropriate. However, I think a site-ban is obviously excessive here. I’m currently in the middle of a major expansion of the William Beebe article, Ferahgo (who would presumably also be covered by a site-ban, due to WP:SHARE) is midway through writing an article about Gerhard Heilmann’s book The Origin of Birds, and we are essentially the only editors working on these articles. If we get site-banned, both of these articles would have to remain indefinitely in their current half-finished state. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to SirFozzie
I would really appreciate some guidance from ArbCom about what is and isn’t covered by my topic ban in this respect. I was under the impression that I’m allowed to make general comments about how Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process could be improved (as I was doing in Jimbo Wales’ user talk), and that I’m allowed to comment in response when someone else has brought me up by name (as in the case of Slrubenstein’s comments). Although the comments from SLR that I was discussing have been deleted using RevDel, arbitrators should still be able to see them, so I’ll link to them anyway: [116][117]. If I was wrong to assume that I’m allowed to do these things, and ArbCom can give me clear instructions about that, then I can agree to refrain from doing them in the future. But it’s important that this be as specific as possible. Just being told that I need to avoid re-fighting past conflicts isn’t going to be as helpful, because that doesn’t tell me what I should do in situations like this one, where I was discussing something that I considered unrelated until other past participants in the R&I case followed me to the discussion and began discussing me elsewhere. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to LHVU
The reason why I didn’t use the e-mail feature to contact Mr. Wales privately was because my intention posting about it in his user talk was more than just to make sure he noticed my letter. I thought that this was an issue where it would be beneficial to have a community discussion about it. The same problem described in my letter had been described by Sandstein in his ArbCom application, and my post in Jimbo’s user talk also quoted Sandstein’s comment, so at the very least I wanted him to be able to participate in the discussion if he wanted to. Sandstein ended up not participating in it, but I still feel that my posting there led to a productive discussion between myself, Jimbo Wales, Cool Hand Luke, and Ludwigs2, Mathsci’s reaction notwithstanding.
However, per the advice from Newyorkbrad and Roger Davies, I’ll be more cautious in the future to avoid initiating discussions that others could see as related to the R&I topic, even if I don’t see them that way myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (non-involved) Ludwigs2
I have struck my name above, as I am not involved in or affected by this in any way.
I think this is a case where BOOMERANG ought to apply. Even though this arbitration case is long over, Mathsci is still obviously holding a grudge, and still trying to find any excuse (no matter how far fetched) to get the people he was arguing with in trouble. I'd like to ask the committee to impose the following sanction on Mathsci:
For a period of one year, Matchsci is prohibited from making any comment whatsoever, anywhere on project, about other editors or their activities.
Mathsci has an unfortunate tendency to to rely on ad hominem arguments in his complaints; his posts to me invariably contain some snide reference or demeaning comment, and the only reason he doesn't treat me with the overt hostility he shows to others from the R&I case is that I disengage from communication with him as quickly as possible. A year in which even mild rudeness and personal attacks are sanctionable might encourage him to develop more socially responsible forms of raising and addressing project issues.
I will open a second amendment thread on this request, if that is needed. I am really tired of this kind of crapulence, and would like to see it put to a stop.
The request against Occam strikes me as silly, sophomoric and tendentious. It does not serve the project's goals, but merely feeds some apparently unquenchable vindictive urge that Mathsci is subject to. --Ludwigs223:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment to Mathsci
M, I don't "tittle-tattle" (whatever the hell that means). I'll remind you again not to make up stupid crap about me, because I will call you on it every time. Please redact that comment. --Ludwigs202:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request to sysop: I am tired of Mathsci's mindless crapulence. Would a sysop please ask Mathsci to either redact the lie he said about me above or provide a supporting diff to justify its inclusion? If I do not get a response from a sysop here today, I will take the matter up at ANI - I am not in the mood to put up with this bull, and am happy to export this trivial matter to whatever forum I need to export it to get satisfaction. thanks. --Ludwigs215:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Mathsci: thanks for providing source for that lie you told about me. Please note that the original context of that quote (which I am sure you are aware of) was in response to Occam accusing you of having personal relationships with Arbs (a misperception which you fostered steadily on the R&I talk page). I was in fact telling him that it was not the case so far as I know. So in fact I was not 'tittle-tattling' on you, but rather defending you by defusing one of Occam's more extreme concerns (though with admittedly snide overtones). If you want to complain about my being uncivil I would happily accept that as true: I might produce several dozen diffs in which you say things that sound tremendously like preening to my ear in order to justify the comment (and which would also explain how Occam got bamboozled into thinking you were more tightly connected than you actually are), but even then you'd have a point. but do not make up lies about me. I'm still waiting on you to redact. --Ludwigs223:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by other editor
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
comment I don't think that topic bans imposed at wikipedia extend to other public news media - I think that censoring someone because of participating in the public debate about wikipedia would be a bad move, and promote a kind of wikipedia community we don't want. People should be allowed to discuss their wiki experiences, also the bad ones, in other venues without that having any bearings on their editing. However, the appeal to Jimbo was clearly a bad move on the part of Captain Occam and does suggest that he is having more than a little trouble dropping the issue here on wikipedia. I think Mathsci is als inflaming the issue and that a more becoming mode of action for him would have been to simply leave it alone, since Occam's communication with Jimbo is not really harming anyone and is unlikely to have any effect on the particular issues covered by the R&I topic ban. I think an indef ban is excessive if Captain Occam recognizes having been in error and shows a will to proceed to become a valuable editor in other venues as he is currently showing good progress towards (e.g. at William Beebee). ·Maunus·ƛ·16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This accusation must be supported by diffs. Mathsci levels several serious charges - meatpuppetry, disruption, reopening a closed case, renew allegations, several venues, violation of topic ban, irresponsibility. The sanctions called for are equally serious - site banning. It really seems inadequate to airily allude to "almost all recent non-article postings" to support multiple highly serious allegations - serious accusations require serious evidence to be taken seriously. Zarboublian (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here Captain Occam says, "I wrote a letter to The Economist which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name." On Jimbo's talk page he wrote, "The Economist edited my letter...[and] also left out where I mentioned who was the user whose reason for leaving I described in detail." Professor marginalia (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone has had a letter published off wiki, regarding issues relating to Wikipedia, and regards forewarning Jimmy Wales of the fact as necessary - why not use the email facility, rather than one of the most highly trafficked pages on the project? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion
Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
Clerk notes
This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
I agree with Phil here. Comments made off of Wikipedia are definitely outside our remit as far as restrictions in almost any case, but there are comments onwiki that may be considered breach of prior restriction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Occam should stick to mainspace for awhile, and work on articles far removed from those that got him into difficulty. Mathsci should allow others to keep an eye on Captain Occam's activities at this point rather than worrying about them himself. Absent additional problems, I do not favor any action by the committee at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best for everyone to move on within their respective restrictions. I do not think a modification is warranted at this time. Cool HandLuke14:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this amendment is warranted just yet though I do concur with what my colleagues have said about WP:AE perhaps being pertinant. Other thoughts? @Captain Occam. In its simplest interpretation, the amended restriction requires you to disengage completely both directly and indirectly from the topic ("including user talk pages"), unless specifically responding to others ("They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned"). This means it prevents you making even coded or oblique references. If you wish to avoid further sanction, perhaps the safest way for you to interpret how this applies to you is to ask yourself before you make an action/edit how you would perceive the same edit/action if it had been made by a topic-banned adversary of yours. If you conclude that such an action/edit of theirs arguably breaches the restriction, don't make a similar one yourself. @Mathsci. I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it. @Ludwigs: I'm surprised by the tone of your comments and must ask you be to be more circumspect. Rogertalk06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely with Roger Davies. ALL of you need to step away from this topic area in any way, shape or form. This appears to be an AE issue. Risker (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current statement for the scope of the sanctions are "to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed)". It is highly problematic that the focus seems to be on "articles" and not on the actual material that is edited. The same focus on the article title rather than on the material edited are in these templates:
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence
The article Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.
1. Does the sanctions include material that is clearly not regarding this intersection but that are in articles that may contain some other material regarding to this intersection. For example, would adding material about the relationship between "IQ and happiness" to the "IQ" article be within the scope of the sanctions?
2. Exactly what articles are included? Articles about ethnic foods? Female circumcision (varies by ethnicity)? Cousin marriages? Immigration? Slavery? Wars (ethnicity certainly often important)? Are articles about various differences between nations under the sanctions? Ethnically based political parties? Politics in general which often includes ethnic concerns? General medical articles since there are ethnic differences regarding diseases? All religious articles since religion varies by ethnicity? I am sure the one with could find this intersection in some small part of every article about human activity in Wikipedia which in effect would mean that all articles about humans are under the scope.
I would recommend that the emphasis should be shifted from specific "articles" to specific "material". So the parts of the "IQ" article not about this intersection is not under the sanctions but the sanctions apply to material about the intersection regardless of the title of article.
Reply to xeno. Since I am topic banned at the moment I am of course interested in knowing what areas I may edit. It is in the area of psychology I have most knowledge and am able to contribute. For example, may I add material about "IQ and happiness" to the IQ article? May I create a new article about how happiness differ between nations? See the other examples I mentioned above. I am sure to be instantly reported by the editors who wants an excuse to ban me permanently so I would like to know before editing where the border goes.Miradre (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Mathsci's comments and his other behavior of following me around it seems likely he will file an AE immediately if I make an edit of any kind to IQ the article and many other articles of the kind I described above. That is exactly why I would like a clarification before making such an edit. I appreciate Mastcell's view that I can make "general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection" but due to the emphasis on specific "articles" rather on "content" both in the sanction text and the tagging it not certain that every administrator would agree that I would be allowed to edit the "IQ" article at all. I would rather not gamble which I why I ask before.Miradre (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Aprock. None of the articles or edits, such as the rankings in the book Human Accomplishment, are about either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. Harassment by Aprock who disagrees with me on issues besides race and intelligence. Also, as usual his presentation is misleading. As far as I know E. O. Wilson is not a "prominent hereditarian" on either race or intelligence issues. Also, I still do not understand or have received an explanation for why Aprock did not also receive a topic ban, or at least notification, for reverting. He did more reverts than me as documented in the topic ban discussion! [118] Looks like a double standard in this area, when I receive a 3 month topic ban, while he nothing for doing more reverts than me, so a clarification would be helpful.Miradre (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(To clarify the time sequence regarding questions and answers in the RfC: Note also that this a new question today from aprock after several arbiters have already answered my earlier one week old question. Miradre (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Statement by Mathsci
Meritless request. This editor is spamming neutral articles with non-neutral content related to R&I and wasting the time of editors, administrators and (in this case) arbitrators. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am just one of a large number of editors to find problems with Miradre's edits. I have been involved in only three of the articles that Miradre has edited recently (White flight, List of international rankings and Malaria). Elsewhere on wikipedia, but not here, Aprock has been the main target of Miradre's complaints. Mathsci (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by MastCell
As a general observation, the race & intelligence dispute features a number of editors who are quite invested in testing and wikilawyering the boundaries of their restrictions. Given this tendency, I think a broad restriction is preferable to death by a thousand cuts. If Miradre's edits are general psychology-related improvements clearly unrelated to the race/intelligence intersection, then I think we have to trust that admins won't sanction him for them. On the other hand, if Miradre's edits simply seem designed to circumvent the letter of the restriction on race/intelligence articles, then I think admins should have the latitude to act. MastCellTalk18:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by aprock
As an illustration of MastCell's comments above about "testing boundaries", Miradre has embarked on a series of edits to promote the book Human Accomplishment by Charles Murray, author of The Bell Curve, adding it to a number of articles where it's inclusion is WP:UNDUE:
made edits which link to articles in the category R&I: [122]
Given this pattern of "walking the line" of his topic ban, could an administrator please clarify whether or not these edits fall within or without the scope of the topic ban? aprock (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Is there an actual instance where there was some dispute over the scope prompting this clarification request? I do note that this case has already been amended to refer to "any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia" and not just articles. –xenotalk12:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the previous amendments and the views above, I'm not sure drawing additional boundary lines would be helpful or effective. The amendment stipulates that any intersection of race and human abilities, broadly construed, is fair game for sanctions, and we broadened it for good reasons. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also decline. We expanded this for a reason. My best approximation here is: if you have to ask, you're not far enough from the boundary. Cool HandLuke23:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Miradre is under a three month topic ban under WP:ARBR&I and appears to have broken that ban by editing too close to the limits. I have filed a report at WP:AE. That is not the issue here.
Captain Occam, who is subject to a very general topic ban which I would have thought precludes his involvement in such requests if he is not directly implicated, has added comments there claiming to be "uninvolved". However, he has used the occasion to launch an attack on my edits on wikipedia, in an area outside my self-imposed voluntary topic ban, to which I have adhered fairly scrupulously. That self-imposed restriction does not apply to project space, although I have agreed that requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I will be sparing (as has been the case). Captain Occam's attack on me there appears to break his topic ban and I actually don't understand the logic of his misusing WP:AE in that way. He has used the occasion to launch an attack on me which has nothing whatsover to do with arbitration enforcement.
Perhaps he could have made a posting on WP:ANI about his concerns, although I appear to have made hardly any edits of any substance to articles recently. His complaints on WP:AE seem to be reiterating the disruptive trolling (now reverted) of yet another sockpuppet of A.K.Nole, A.B.C.Hawkes(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who was just blocked by Sandstein after two SPIs with some help also from Elen of the Roads.
I am not under any ArbCom restrictions. Captain Occam, however, seems to have broken the terms of his extended topic ban and appears to be abusing the arbitration enforcement page. I am reporting this here because it seems so anomolous.
Please could ArbCom clarify whether Captain Occam's attack on me in this context is within the terms of his topic ban, as extended subsequently at WP:AE.
There is also the issue of the two confirmed meatpuppets of Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2, who since the topic bans appear to have been editing on behalf of the topic banned users. Their real life identities have been confirmed to ArbCom at the start of the year. SightWatcher has complained about me in the same vociferous way as Captain Occam, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances. Several users, including administrators, have privately and on-wiki raised doubts about three further accounts that have appeared since the topic ban, editing exclusively in the area of the topic ban. These users are Woodsrock, Boothello and Miradre; the only evidence so far has been circumstantial. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further update The terms of EdJohnston's original extension did contain a loophole which Captain Occam has used. However, one of his intentions for posting at WP:AE, and not WP:ANI, appears to have been to lobby for restrictions to be imposed on my editing in project space. Since at least two accounts have been editing on his behalf during his topic ban, that is a surprising request. But he must surely be aware of the continuing problems with the community banned user Mikemikev, which make such a request completely out of the question. Just in the last two weeks or so Mikemikev has created a flurry of sockpuppets, some extremely malicious. The most malicious involve outing explicitly in user names. All traces of these have been removed from wikipedia, thanks to the kind help of Fred Bauder, Casliber, Elen of the Roads and LessHeard VanU. In addition Mikemikev has posted nasty racist comments on Stormfront and created two racist attack pages on ED.ch, dealt with by an administrator there with an account here. As Comicania he created an attack file on Commons which was dealt with here and on Commons with the kind help of MastCell, Moonriddengirl and Philippe Beaudette of WMF. It has taken a lot of effort and vigilance in project space, with the dedicated help of checkusers, to deal with this disruption connected with WP:ARBR&I. Arbitrators have been kept informed about these problems and continue to be extremely helpful. Other off-wiki disruption connected with friends of Ferahgo the Assassin on FurAffinity involves racist attacks on User:Muntuwandi and me, which ArbCom has been told about. Newyorkbrad used the terms "troubling overtones" a year ago; those overtones have not gone away or become any less troubling. Mathsci (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about Captain Occam I do not quite understand what Captain Occam means about harassment. SightWatcher has complained about my edits to Risker on her user talk page, who, because she is recused from all matters related to WP:ARBR&I, was unaware that SightWatcher is a real life friend of Ferahgo the Assassin. Captain Occam has intervened on his own initiative, presumably following my edits from afar, and has lobbied for sanctions against me on WP:AE. Captain Occam is aware that my recommendation would be that were his topic ban to be lifted formally, i.e. delisted from the ArbCom page, it should probably be replaced by a voluntary and indefinite withdrawal by him and his friends from all articles and their talk pages related to race and intelligence, reasonably interpreted. As for his statements below, I find them very hard to understand. Out of the blue, in a situation where he has not been mentioned, he launches an unprovoked vitriolic attack on me on WP:AE, describing me in extremely uncomplimentary terms without the slightest shred of evidence; he then complains here that he is being victimized by me. What is all this nonsense? Mathsci (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment of Captain Occam What Captain Occam has just written is another personal attack, which seems way over the line.[124] As a reminder of what harassment is, here are the historic records of two fake user pages for Muntuwandi and Mathsci on FurAffinity recorded in May [125][126] and a forged message from Mathsci on the page of Ferahgo the Assassin.[127] I told Shell Kinney about these on her user talk page shortly after I stumbled across them in May (searching for something on wikipedia). On her talk page, Ferahgo the Assassin confirmed that these pages were April Fool's jokes created by a friend of hers. I wonder, considering what he is writing now, whether possibly Captain Occam's account might be compromised in some way at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further response to Captain Occam On this page Captain Occam is making a number of unsubstantiated statements of a highly negative kind about me. These appear to constitute a personal attack, which seems very emotionally charged. The same is true on WP:AE. I am at a complete loss to know why he is doing this. Nothing makes any sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The query that I had seems to have been answered here by EdJohnston so I am withdrawing this request for clarification.
As I understand it uninvolved administrators dealing with the WP:AE case can, if deemed appropriate, simultaneously clarify the extended topic bans to preclude any involvement in enforcement requests concerned with WP:ARBR&I except when the originator of the request.
I must say that this request to prohibit another user from uttering an opinion seems very hypocritical considering that Mathsci himself in a RfC argued that he should be able to participate on "process pages" while promising to stay away from the topic itself. See the discussion for removing the topic ban [128] as well as Mathsci's stated desire to be able to voice opinions on "process pages" while staying away from the topic itself.[129] Also, his description of me is incorrect and I argue in the AE case that he himself has broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from the topic area.Miradre (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Volunteer Marek
Just pointing out that Volunteer Marek is not an uninvolved editor but has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV. Miradre (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Captain Occam
I already mentioned this in the AE thread, but Ferahgo’s and my topic bans specifically do not extend to AE. This was first pointed out by ArbCom in a previous request for clarificaiton. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended in this thread, the thread also mentioned AE as a special exception, and the advice that I not participate in R&I-related AE threads is listed as “not compulsory”.
I need to make it clear that in general I have been trying to avoid Mathsci since the beginning of the year. He has not returned the favor. The most obvious example of this was his attempt to get me site-banned in February, which grew out of an argument that he initiated with me in Jimbo Wales’ user talk about my letter which was published in The Economist. In response to that amendment thread, several arbitrators told him that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Mathsci doesn’t appear to have followed that advice. In addition to his various enforcement requests against other editors during the time since then, on June 30th he sent me e-mail saying that I will have to put up with this again myself if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Specifically, he said that he will demand that my topic ban be lifted only if I promise to never edit race-related articles again, and that he’ll support this with all the same accusations of meatpuppetry and whatnot that he’s made in the February thread and the current one. I’d had no recent involvement with Mathsci when he sent me this message; the only context of him sending it was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad. (Jclemens has seen the contents of the e-mail.)
I would like to have as little to do with Mathsci as possible, but I would also like to have the opportunity to eventually appeal my topic ban without Mathsci using it as a platform to pursue the same interpersonal dispute against me that he’s been pursuing for more than a year. For the past month, I have been attempting to discuss with ArbCom whether there is a way that that’s possible, but have had very little success communicating with them effectively. (The main problem I’ve been having is arbitrators either not responding to me at all, or abruptly ceasing to respond while I’m trying to discuss the issue with them.) I’m kind of at my wit’s end about this. An appeal is supposed to be an opportunity for an editor to discuss with ArbCom whether or not his or her editing has improved. It’s not supposed to be an opportunity for someone else sanctioned in the same case to continue pursing the same interpersonal dispute that originally led to arbitration. But that’s what Mathsci has promised it will be, if I attempt to appeal my topic ban.
This is why I began paying attention to his behavior towards Miradre. After Mathsci sent me this e-mail on June 30, I wanted to see just how severe his harassment behavior is nowadays, since apparently I’ll soon have to put up with this again myself. My reason for mentioning this at AE is because I’m still hoping that if something could be done about this behavior while Mathsci is directing it at Miradre, perhaps when I appeal my topic ban I won’t have to put up with it myself. I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute, especially not as far as content is concerned. I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban, and after a month of silence from ArbCom in response to my efforts to discuss how this might be possible, bringing attention to his harassment behavior at AE is the only way I can think of that this might be possible.
I hope this thread can receive attention from the arbitrators that I’ve tried to talk to about the possibility of appealing my ban: Newyorkbrad, Cool Hand Luke, and especially Jclemens. Please, I’m asking all of you—give me a way to appeal my topic ban without having to put up with this, such as permission to appeal it in a private hearing. That’s the only thing I really care about here. If I can be given that, I won’t have any need to try and forestall Mathsci’s promised harassment of me by trying to get attention for it when it’s being directed at someone else.
In response to SirFozzie: if the arbitrators want me to change my comment at AE to not describe myself as uninvolved, I’m willing to do that. However, what I think really needs to be addressed here is the issue I described above. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
I hope I’ve made this clear already, but I think it bears repeating that I really don’t want to be in the middle of this conflict. I’d rather not be posting at AE about anyone’s editing in the R&I topic area. But as described in my post above, Mathsci has made it clear that he isn’t able to leave me alone even in situations where I’ve had nothing to do with him or R&I articles in the past several months (which was the case in June). His e-mail to me also makes it clear that I can expect more of this from him in the future. Until there is some sort of long-term solution to this problem, I feel like trying to get attention for Mathsci’s harassment behavior is the only option I have available. I really hope ArbCom can come up with a solution to this, especially one that doesn’t require the amount of stress from me that interacting with Mathsci always involves. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Volunteer Marek
As you haven’t been involved in articles on this topic for very long, I don’t think you have a good understanding the history of this situation. This isn’t just an issue of Mathsci’s most recent e-mail to me. Mathsci’s repeated attempts to get me and Ferahgo sanctioned, and following me to discussions that had nothing to do with him in order to argue with me, have been an ongoing issue since the ARBR&I case closed a year ago. It’s involved several threads at AE and AN/I, a sockpuppet investigation, and an attempt to get me site-banned via an arbitration amendment in February. Based on his repeated claiming that editors who disagree with him are specific real-life friends of Ferahgo, he’s also apparently conducted a large amount of real-life research about her. She’s a 24-year-old girl, and she doesn’t appreciate having a middle-aged man that she doesn’t know prying into aspects of her personal life. I think ArbCom is already aware of the extent of this, and four different arbitrators have already told him in response to his amendment thread to stop pushing for enforcement against me. Mathsci has ignored that request: just as one example, he opened his sockpuppet investigation about me three months after ArbCom gave him these instructions.
You can’t just look at a single AE thread, without any familiarity with the background of this situation, and think that what you see there gives you the complete picture. You have to look at this in the context of the year-long pattern of behavior that exists as background. When a pattern like this has existed long enough, it’s not possible to not believe the person in question when they tell you that they intend to continue with it. Two editors who have been paying attention to this situation for as long as it’s been going on, and who might be able to help you understand my AE post in the proper context, are Ludwigs2 and Maunus. (Incidentally, these aren’t editors who have tended to agree with me about content, so I’m not just pointing you to editors who are on my “side” in content disputes.) --Captain Occam (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Marek: After a year’s worth of experience with this pattern, and the promise that the same pattern is going to continue in the future, I’ve just come to accept that I’m going to have to periodically put up with this from Mathsci even when I’m not trying to have anything to do with him. On the other hand if I try to get admins to do something about Mathsci’s battleground attitude, it’ll mean having to put up with a lot more of this stress in the short term, but it’ll also have the potential to resolve the problem in a long-term sense. It’s like pulling teeth. You could ask the same question about why a person with a toothache would get a tooth pulled—if they care about avoiding pain, why would they ask a dentist to do something that’s even more painful? The answer is that if it’s the only way to make the pain go away in the long term, sometimes it’s still worthwhile.
Please remember, I’ve been trying to discuss this issue with ArbCom privately for the past month, and have been consistently unable to get an answer from them about whether I could appeal my topic ban in a private hearing in order to help avoid this problem. (They haven’t told me no; they just haven’t given me a response at all.) The tooth-pulling attitude that I’m having now is more or less a last resort for me. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by EdJohnston
I have added a comment on the current WP:AE request about Miradre to indicate that Captain Occam doesn't seem to be violating his current topic ban by posting there. (My wording *advised* him not to post at AE about other people but it did not forbid it). In general, I think that in the future, any broad topic bans that are written (those bans which include talk pages) should disallow commenting about others on any page of Wikipedia, including AE, unless the person's own edits are under review. Such article+talk topic bans should still allow direct appeals to Arbcom. It is too late for me to fix the wording that I drafted for the AE sanction that was issued to Captain Occam on December 2, 2010. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Volunteer Marek
Question/statement on Capt. Occam's statement:
I hope I’ve made this clear already, but I think it bears repeating that I really don’t want to be in the middle of this conflict. - yet you show up on AE out of the blue in a case in which you haven't been mentioned with a 7097 character/1213 word statement (basically the equivalent of a decent sized Wikipedia article). That just doesn't look like a "really don't want"a to me. It looks like a "I'm itching to be in this again".
I don’t actually want to take a side in the Mathsci/Miradre dispute - you might not want to but somehow you did.
I just care about my ability to not be harassed myself when I’m ready to appeal my topic ban - so you pick a (real) fight with Mathsci today because of some hypothetical harassment you think he might engage in the future?
Note that Capt. Occam (and a sock of Mikemikev) aside, the consensus at AE is pretty much that Mirardre's edits are trouble - so if this was some kind of attempt to preempt possibility of future harassment, as silly as that is in itself, Capt. Occam definitely picked a wrong situation to do it in.
@Mirardre: has had extensive disputes with me in that past as well as has been involved in race articles with a strong personal POV
has had extensive disputes with me - probably true. So have at least have a dozen other editors.
has been involved in race articles - yes, somewhat.
with a strong personal POV - total nonsense. Again, at least a half a dozen other editors have had precisely the same disagreements with you that I have.
@Cpt. Occam - maybe I haven't been around for that long, but I *am* fully capable of going back and reading old cases, threads and discussions. Your way of framing things is ... "peculiar", to be put it nicely. Anyway - general point stands; if you don't want to interact with Mathsci, why pick fights with him? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
My first thought is to direct the parties (and Captain Occam) to not comment on each other until at least the AE request is worked out. I do have doubts that Captain Occam can be truly described as uninvolved in this situation, and I hope whatever administrator actions the AE request takes that into account when actioning the request. SirFozzie (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence (September 2011)
I’m replacing my statement with a comment on my continued interaction with Mathsci, because at this stage I think that’s more important than why I was looking for an interaction ban.
In his statement below, Mathsci says “I have not been responsible for proposing any action vaguely related to Captain Occam or his friends in the last few months.” At AE on August 31st, Mathsci proposed “I suggest that this opportunity is used to extend the indefinite topic ban on him and Ferahgo-the-Assassin to include an indefinite ban on participating in any requests at WP:AE related to WP:ARBR&I.” Mathsci made this proposal about me and Ferahgo eight days ago. This was the most recent example of him proposing action about me in the past month; it is not the only example.
Anyway, here is what I think really matters, and what has the potential to resolve the situation:
I do not have a problem with Mathsci’s request that I disengage from him, as long as he agrees to do the same to me and Ferahgo. I have told him twice that I would be willing to promise this if he could promise the same thing in return: once in December, and a second time in August. Both times that I made this offer to Mathsci, he refused it. I will now make the offer a third time. If Mathsci can promise to completely disengage from me and Ferahgo from this point forward (and this includes no more off-wiki sleuthing about us), then we can promise to completely disengage from him also.
This is really all I’ve wanted from Mathsci since December, and all of the drama between him and me since then could have been avoided if he were willing to agree to it. I would like to know whether he’s willing to agree to this now. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I’m still waiting for Mathsci to acknowledge the offer I’m making that he and I agree to leave each other alone. During the time since I posted it, he’s updated his statement below several times to add more diffs, but he’s continuing to ignore what I’m offering. If Mathsci really does care about us disengaging from each other, why can’t he agree to this? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Mathsci
This request is frivolous and disruptive. It is wrongly framed since there are no active ArbCom sanctions in effect on me: all sanctions were formally lifted by a motion initiated by ArbCom in mid-December. (My self-imposed voluntary restrictions are still in effect, but do not extend to project pages; I committed myself to initiating cases on WP:AE only in exceptional circumstances.) The restrictions placed by ArbCom on Captain Occam have been extended since they were put in place.
At the moment I am not going to enter into any detail about the recent AE request concerning Miradre, the subsequent request for clarification and the AE appeal by Miradre against the one-month block which has just been declined by NuclearWarfare after comments by several uninvolved administrators (two ipsocks of Mikemikev, later blocked, aided Miradre in making responses!). The various AE requests and clarifications concerning Miradre, only one of which I initiated, have involved multiple editors almost all of whom have found fault with Miradre's general method of editing and use of sources. The request for an amendment in the middle of an AE appeal where Captain Occam might himself have been sanctioned seems like very odd timing: it is reminiscent of Captain Occam's disruptive activities in mid-December in multiple venues on wikipedia, when arbitrators were voting to lift my topic ban.
[130][131][132][133]
Yesterday I sent a letter to ArbCom which I will reproduce here:
email to arbcom sent prior to this request
Dear arbitrators,
Captain Occam continues to misuse ArbCom pages to post requests out-of-the-blue for sanctions to be imposed on me. This seems to be a pattern of harrassment. When I made a report at WP:AE on Miradre, where his name was not mentioned, he used that as his first attempt to intervene and request sanctions on me. I no longer edit in the area of R&I but keep a lookout for sockpuppets and meatpuppets, because there has been a lot of anomolous editing since ARBR&I was closed, particularly by Mikemikev, but also by two identified meatpuppets of Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin.
When I requested clarification about Captain Occam's involvement in the report on Miradre, he used that request for clarification to launch yet another attack on me. On Jclemens talk page he inidicated that he wished to have sanctions imposed on me, without producing any diffs to support his argument. Since EdJohnston already answered the question concerning Captain Occam's involvement at AE, I withdrew the request for clarification, which was then archived by Xeno. Many editors commented at the AE request re Miradre, which remained open for a long period.
Captain Occam then saw that I had recently been involved in a totally unrelated discussion on COIN, where Atama had advised me to be careful what I wrote (a BLP that was almost certainly autobiographical). Captain Occam on his own admission then decided that Atama was not well-disposed to me and requested that he close the AE request on Miradre. Atama duly blocked Mirardre for a month for violating a topic ban, the very opposite of what Captain Occam expected. That closure has been upheld by at least two regular administrators handling AE.
Miradre then made an appeal against the block from his talk page. Captain Occam used that as a third opportunity to launch an attack on me, demanding sanctions. I replied, suggesting that his topic ban should probably be extended to all AE requests concerning ARBR&I. He then lobbied NuclearWarfare to impose sanctions on me on NW's user talk page:
NW declined his request and Captain Occam concluded the discussion by writing that he would seek sanctions on me directly from ArbCom. He later lobbied Jclemens yet again on his talk page.
It appears to me that Captain Occam is intervening in processes in which he has no direct involvement solely to give the artificial impression of an ongoing dispute with me. Unless his meatpuppets choose to interact with me (principally <redacted> = SightWatcher, a personal friend of Ferahgo who started editing as soon as her ban was imposed), I would have no reason to mention Captain Occam. It is Captain Occam's responsibility that he has chosen to influence edits through meatpuppetry and quite outside my control.
All other interactions have also been one-sided, including most recently Captain Occam's disruptive postings described above. In addition in January Captain Occam wrote a letter to the Economist which he described in detail on Jimbo Wales talk page. Only part of the letter was published; they refused to publish a section which referred indirectly to me, where it was claimed that my editing had frightened a particular editor from wikipedia. In addition on FurAffinity two joke accounts, Mathsci and Muntuwandi, were created by friends of Ferahgo with pages containing crude sexual and racist comments, in which Ferahgo partipated. Finally in December 2010 Captain Occam made unfounded allegations about cronyism with Roger Davies.
I cannot see any merit in Captain Occam suggesting an amendment of any kind. What seems to be quite likely is that his topic will be extended by uninvolved administrators to preclude any participation in AE requests concerning ARBR&I.
As I have said before, I am not against Captain Occam's topic ban being lifted, but I would suggest that even if it is formally lifted, he voluntarily withdraw indefinitely from editing all matters connected with race and intelligence.
Shell Kinney has indicated that the email correspondence between me and her about SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 can be made available to other arbitrators. My understanding was that it was discussed by arbcom already in December 2010. Mathsci (talk) 12:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request. I am an involuntary participant in this request, initiated by Captain Occam. I have not been responsible for proposing any action vaguely related to Captain Occam or his friends in the last few months. Even if Captain Occam continues persistently to express some general personal malaise to arbitrators and ex-arbitrators,[135][136][137][138][139][140] please could he be advised to disengage from me on wikipedia in the future? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment directly on the proposed ammendment, except that I have never seen any situation involving the parties where CIV, AGF, and of course editing content according to our core content policies and 3RR, have not been sufficient to ensure the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. I certainly have seen worse conflicts among users.
Frankly, I do not understand why Captain Occam and others cannot do what I have done in similar situations, where I have simply chosen never to respond to a particular editor. All Captain Occam has to do is ignore MathSci, and he can achieve his aim without any ArbCom intervention. No offense, but I think ArbCom should never get involved in a situation where there are other remedies.
But I do want to stress that whatever ArbCom does it should not use this ammendment as a means to limit MathSci's edits to science and social science -related articles (including "history of..." articles). MathSci is one of our best editors, in his ability to research a topic and provide neutral accounts of the significant views on topics from reliable sources. I cannot imagine anyone making a case that MathSci should be banned from editing on any topic, and we cannot let this proposal become a back-door means to have that effect. Slrubenstein | Talk11:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was involved in the banning of Captain Occam, but then I stopped participating in R&I discussions. I have followed the topic only because WP:AE and the other arbitration pages are in my watchlist.
Generally, Captain Occam's participation seems limited to a) throwing all sort of obstacles in the way of banning tendentious editors that share his POV, b) trying to get Mathsci removed from the topic.
Mathsci is the most effective editor in getting said tendentious editors identified and dealt with. Removing him from the topic would just give freeway to said tendentious editors.
Since those tendentious editors share Captain Occam's POV, he is simply continuing his involvement in the area he was topic-banned from. I don't recall why Captain Occam was allowed to comment in R&I related arbitration requests, but the net effect has been quite negative. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ferahgo
Since I would obviously be affected by the outcome of this, I should start by saying that I, too, would really appreciate this proposed interaction ban. Over the past few months Mathsci has made it seem like he's following me around the internet, spying on me off-Wiki, and researching my friends. This comment here, about a friend who's never participated in Wikipedia at all [141], is extremely creepy to me. It appears that he has researched all of my friends even though I haven't participated in the topic area since sometime last year. There are other examples of him obviously trying to look up stuff about me off-Wiki also. Mathsci was asked months ago by Arbcom to leave this topic area alone, yet he can't seem to bring himself to do it.
His attitude towards his conflict with Occam seems to be another example of the same thing. He says he wants him and Occam to leave each other alone, but he still can't resist emailing Occam (and me), reporting him at SPI, etc. Roger Davies advised him in February that if an editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be brought up by less involved editors. But I think he just can't stop himself, even though he knows that not interacting with Occam would be what's best for everyone and what ArbCom wants. An interaction ban would give Mathsci what he seems to know would be best, but doesn't have the willpower to actually do. More importantly, after the amount of off-Wiki research that Mathsci has apparently conducted about me, an interaction ban would make me feel safer and more at-ease editing on Wikipedia. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My statement has been refactored for accuracy at Roger Davies' request.
Statement by Maunus
I am involved. I don't see the point of this request, what is it exactly that an interaction ban would achive that would not be achieved by Occam simply ignoring Mathsci as Slrubenstein and Coren suggests? I think it is reasonable to consider that Mathsci has been targeted for rather nasty off-wiki harrassment as a result of his ivolvement in the dispute, among them being labeled as a "Jewish Wikipedia editor" on Stormfront.org, and being the butt of malicious jokes on encyclopedia dramatica. On the other hand, what kind of interaction is it that he has engaged in with Occam? He posted a reply on Jimbo's page when Occam had first mentioned the dispute in which mathsci was involved in his letter to the economist, and then tried to appeal to Jimbo (with a suggestion to turn wikipedia's into a dictatorship in order to better protect the rights of minority editors...). I certainly don't see any evidence that would suggest that an interaction ban for Mathsci should be required. While there is probably no precedent for havign a unilateral interaction ban, I guess Occam could have one if he wants it, that way we might at least avoid more waste of arbitrators time. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Boothello
Captain Occam appears to be requesting special treatment from Arbcom. There's nothing unique about his situation, this is just standard for disagreements with Mathsci. I'm no stranger to this myself:
Mathsci only rarely edits the articles or their talk pages. But when I make an edit he doesn't like, he typically responds by immediately accusing me of policy violations and threatening me with sanctions as though he had the power or authority to do so. Some examples are [142], [143], [144], [145] and [146] These threats and accusations are the entirety of Mathsci's interaction with me. I've never seen the guy before until he showed up on my talk with these comments. He refused to stop posting on my talk when I asked him (at one point, the majority of total revisions to my talk were from him). The first diff above is especially vexing, as it seems to be threatening Risker because of her comments asking him to disengage: "I have privately sent messages about her comments to two members of ArbCom."
I certainly don't think this is good or fair, but I think Occam's request for an interaction ban is unnecessary. If an amendment is made, then I think we need something that's good for the community and not just for one editor.Boothello (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Aprock
It's been over two months since Captain Occam has edited an article page. Since that edit he's been able to generate 100+ non-article edits, nearly all of which orbit WP:ARBR&I. It seems like the most constructive thing that can occur going forward is for Captain Occam to fully disengage from R/I related issues and begin contributing in earnest to other article topics and pages. aprock (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion
Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Clerk notes
This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Ok, parties, you've each had your say. Now I, for one, would like to see input from other community members, administrators, and arbitrators familiar with the situation. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't envision a scenario where it would be productive to enact this particular ban suggestion given the context and history here. If you don't want to interact with each other, then don't. I'd rather not provide a club to beat each other up with. — Coren(talk)22:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The short of it, Captain, is that interaction bans are used only as a very last resort in cases where two editors have been sniping at each other without cause for a long time. In this case, all it would end up doing is give you both yet another rule to brandish to claim the other violated it. If you're alleging specific misbehaviour from Mathsci, then bring it to normal dispute resolution with evidence; otherwise it just looks like you're looking for a new weapon to bring to the fray. — Coren(talk)13:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I had forgotten this specific limitation. I think the best solution in this case might be for the committee to give leave to proceed with an RFC/U if you show reasonable cause; I'll ask the rest of the committee to take a look at this discussion to chime in and we'll see where we go from there. — Coren(talk)14:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently become convinced that a committee-imposed interaction ban would be healthy for all parties involved. We've had enough spy vs. spy nonsense. Cool HandLuke23:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Shell did not refer to Mathsci as a "spy." Upon further reflection, I'm not sure if an interaction restriction quite captures what I see to be the problem. On-wiki interaction is not what bothers me. Perhaps we should make clear that that R&I sanctions are imposed for continuing prior problematic behavior. I perceive too much focus on Amazon accounts and message boards, and not enough evidence of continuing the BATTLE. By focusing the inquiry on-site in this manner, uninvolved users could report future flare ups. I suspect that other users may need to be topic banned, but I wish Mathsci would take a step back. Cool HandLuke12:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After further reflection, I think an interaction ban is not necessary. Although Mathsci has been told that it would be wise to move away from the R&I topic, it is possible that no one has previously raised a concern about his sleuthing. It may have even been encouraged. Under these circumstances, and given that Mathsci is a long-term contributor and presumably responsive to good-faith concerns, it might be best to leave the matter here without further action. Mathsci now has notice that some of the behavior is thought to be a problem. I hope that is enough. Cool HandLuke17:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also fed up with the spy vs spy stuff (as CHL so aptly puts it) along with the inordinate length of the relevant postings. I invite proposals to cover both issues. Roger Daviestalk04:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More than a week later, my views remain unchanged. Unless there is a new and unexpected development, I believe this thread can be archived without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the parties should just each go their separate ways and ignore each other, but agree that probably no intervention is required at this time. –xenotalk18:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Modification of ban to be a standard topic ban from Race and intelligence-related edits broadly construed and a route for appeal of the sanction clearly outlined.
Statement by The Devil's Advocate
My concerns mostly relate to the wording that bans "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic." As read this ban would seem to prevent any discussion of the conduct of the 1,000+ editors who have contributed to the Race and intelligence article, even when it has nothing to do with the subject. However, from my reviewing of their contributions it seems the only time these editors have commented on the conduct of editors from the topic area has been when that conduct directly concerned the topic area in some way.
This wording greatly enables the kind of disruptive gaming sanctions should be looking to prevent and this appears to have already occurred. Following an amendment to the Review case regarding Mathsci, an IP sock of an editor apparently obsessed with Math left a comment on Trev's talk page. Math removed the comment and Trev restored it, politely asking that Math not edit his userspace. Math reverts, citing WP:BAN, and suggests Trev ask an Arb about it. Trev restores the comment and reiterates his desire that Math not do this. Another editor reverts him, an IP restores the comment, and the previous editor removes the comment again.
Following Math's suggestion Trev commented at the page of Jclemens to object to these actions in his userspace and asking for advice. Mathsci jumps into the discussion, calling Trev Ferahgo, claiming that Trev had made a "sudden miraculous return" and that he was engaging in conduct "indistinguishable" from "Ferahgo's other friend SightWatcher", knowing Trev's actions were actually prompted by the above situation. After expressing his frustration with Math's conduct towards him, Math seizes on Trev's mention of R&I to say "Someone could easily report him now at WP:AE" and a report was filed mere minutes later.
A few days later Math created an ANI discussion to object to other editors restoring comments from that same sockmaster. He references Trev's conduct obliquely by talking of his "perseverance . . . in pursuing those operating proxy-editors." One day later Trev comments merely to say Math had also removed comments from his userspace against his wishes and that he should stop doing that. Math immediately suggests administrative action by stating "he is breaking the terms of that ban by commenting here when his name has not been mentioned", conveniently worded to disregard the allusion to Trev's conduct just a day before. Just as before an AE case is filed in response to Math's comments almost immediately with the filer responding to the ANI comment to note the case has been created, which results in a block.
During Trev's appeal, Math seemingly insinuates that he had nothing to do with that AE case. Not long after that Math once more goes in to remove comments from Trev's talk page, sparking another edit war in Trev's userspace that lead to Trev losing talk page privileges. After the block expired, Trev filed a request for arbitration regarding the circumstances of the block and the removal of comments from banned editors by Math and others, with Math immediately responding with an AE case, claiming falsely that Trev is forbidden from even mentioning Math's name.
This dispute with Math illustrates rather clearly how the sanction has proven ineffective as Math can directly provoke Trev into a block-worthy response without fear of Trev reporting him for it, essentially encouraging such disruption. I believe reducing the sanction to a normal topic ban will prevent this situation from repeating with Trev or Sight.
@Pen I do not think an interaction ban of any kind is necessary at this point, because the issue, from my perspective, is that Math knew his conduct could not be reported by Trev without Trev getting blocked for violating the ban. Allowing Trev the ability to comment on Math's conduct outside R&I means, I believe, that he will feel compelled to avoid interacting with Trev because there will be no incentive. Rather than having a restriction that presumes Trev or Sight will engage in bad behavior outside R&I, despite no evidence being presented to support that presumption, making it so that they have true freedom of movement outside R&I will more clearly signal whether they will or can edit constructively elsewhere on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger It is not the removal of comments from banned editors itself that is the issue, but the edit-warring and resulting discussions about it being used to restrict Trev's activity on Wikipedia. Math could have done any number of things to prevent a situation where Trev gets blocked, but he chose to poke at Trev repeatedly until he said "Stop it!" and then Math basically responds with "BAN HIM!" Look at the discussion on Jclemens' talk page. Math suggested Trev talk to an Arb about the issue, and when Trev did, Math repeatedly accused Trev of talking to Jclemens at the behest of a banned editor, when he would know full well that Trev was talking to Jclemens at Math's own suggestion. After repeatedly referring to Ferahgo and the proxy-editing allegations (including a comment where he implies Trev is Ferahgo), Trev responded by saying Math's conduct keeps him from getting away from R&I drama and Math said "someone" could file an AE case against Trev because R&I was not mentioned in the discussion. He did the same thing at AN as Trev commented after Math clearly referred to the proxy-editing allegations against Trev, but Math said Trev was in violation of the ban because his name was not mentioned in the discussion. That kind of conduct is textbook gaming. The point of my request for these two amendments is partly to make it less likely that such gaming can occur.
I would also reiterate that the wording "worked in the topic" is so broad that any editor who has made a few edits to an R&I article would qualify, meaning the restriction as it stands effectively leaves Trev and Sight on edge about whether they can complain about the conduct of any user as that editor may have a few minor contributions to an R&I article. A restriction that effectively demands Trev and Sight memorize an exhaustive list of contributors to a topic area to know whose conduct they can comment about without fear of sanction is punitive to the extreme.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to reiterate that the banned editor comments are not the issue. Again, even if Math feels his actions were justified, Trev not being able to object to this conduct in his own userspace and Math seeming to exploit that restriction in discussions about the conduct to provoke Trev into a blockable action is the inherent problem being noted here. I believe how to handle the restoration of contributions from banned editors is the kind of issue that should be referred to the community, and not decided by the Arbs in even this limited sense as it would represent a rejection of a long-accepted standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, on several occasions now I have said that my argument is not based on some opinion about the legitimacy of removing comments from banned editors ([147][148][149][150]). Continuing to say my request for amendment serves to "characterize Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming" seems rather inflammatory. Would you please address my concerns by taking my own stated reasons for the request into consideration, rather than making claims about my reasons that have been repeatedly rebuffed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, Mathsci is certainly not a minor contributor to the topic area and his actions are what prompted my concerns. Your proposed change would not resolve those concerns by any measure. As long as editors such as Mathsci are able to force interactions with these editors while those with whom they are forcing interactions are unable to complain about those interactions, I do not see any reason to believe the issue with the restriction will be resolved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will say concerning the comment from Jclemens, part of the reason I believe a simple topic ban is the most appropriate change is because making it a mutual interaction ban would be difficult to enact in a way that would not sanction editors who were not part of the issue. My belief is that interaction bans should only be used in lieu of a topic ban or for when problematic interactions extend beyond a single topic area. Combining a topic ban with an interaction ban, one-way or mutual, when the conduct issues only concern a specific topic area is restricting the editor more than is necessary to resolve the dispute, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a tad concerned at the fact my actual suggestion is not being considered. Under the circumstances of this ban, Mathsci or other editors such as Johnuniq or Hipocrite, are free to confront Trev and Sight at any time and anywhere while, no matter what those editors do, Trev and Sight are not allowed to complain about it. Mathsci could make repeated scathing remarks towards Trev at a user talk page, which he did at Jclemens' talk page as noted in my evidence above, and Trev is not allowed to complain about it because it will be a violation of the ban. Do the Arbs really think this sort of indulgence should remain? These editors may simply remain inactive regardless, but I think there should be some consideration given to what should happen if one of them decides to dust off their account to do some article work outside the R&I topic area. What happens if that editor runs into one of these significant contributors to R&I?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am extremely disappointed that after a lot of inactivity the second motion to show up in this case again does not address any of my concerns. This motion seems to be completely at odds with WP:BAN and would only enable the type of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct Roger himself warned Mathsci about during the review case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to bar them from restoring comments from Echigo mole or Mikemikev, though I express strenuous objection to that motion as punitive given the harmless nature of the comments being restored, then I suggest you at least eliminate the restriction I raised concerns about when I first initiated this request. A topic ban from R&I is enough as neither of them have interacted with R&I editors outside topics that do not broadly fall within the topic area. Saying they cannot raise concerns about the conduct of other R&I editors outside the topic area while those editors are free to interact with them in a manner that, I might reiterate, Roger has actually described as "battleground behavior" is overly punitive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The effect of Amendment 1 would be to enable SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 to discuss the conduct of editors connected with the topic. In practice, that means these two editors would be entitled to initiate discussions about Mathsci on a variety of talk pages and noticeboards. It is hard to see how that would help the encyclopedia, and I am unaware of any reason to believe that such monitoring is required. At any rate, the R&I cases have raised Mathsci's profile to an extent that plenty of established editors are available should Mathsci's conduct need comment.
Mathsci has two problems:
Remedy 1.1. This appears to be satisfactorily resolved, and Mathsci's contributions show a lot of good article development and no battlefield conduct, possibly apart from the following problem.
A long term abuser is known to harass Mathsci. The problems started long ago (disagreements were at Butcher group in June 2009, but started before that) and were not related to R&I in any way.
The banned user now has an easy method of attacking Mathsci. All they have to do is notify an R&I editor about some matter (that event was a case request that was removed 17 minutes later by Courcelles). The banned user has noticed that some editors will restore their comments after they have been removed per WP:DENY (diff, diff), and the community has divided opinions on the desirability of removing comments by banned users. That guarantees a pointless discussion which can be initiated by the banned user whenever they choose.
If Arbcom decides that editors should not remove unhelpful comments that were intended to harass a productive editor, the banned user can create permanent memorials to celebrate their achievement. That issue does not need input from R&I editors (and if it were vital, they could email Arbcom). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rue Cardinale is a new sock and needs to be blocked. Clearly the banned user is trying to provoke conflict, and the only sensible procedure is to apply DENY by removing their junk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverseren: Your comment at "03:08, 31 July 2012" asserts your right to restore comments from a banned user, but I do not see any explanation for how that helps the encyclopedia—why would you want to do that?
This clarification request has raised two unrelated issues: (1) what are appropriate responses relating to the R&I issue, and (2) what are appropriate responses relating to the banned user who has harassed Mathsci for over three years (the banned user has no interest in R&I and is merely using these discussions to poke Mathsci). Talk:Silverseren now has a completely superfluous "notification" signed by a sock with a username that matches the street where Mathsci lives—it is rare to see such a clear case of harassment.
I saw an early disagreement between the banned user and Mathsci (from a discussion at ANI in 2009), and the initial interaction showed a good editor (Mathsci) going out of their way to provide helpful answers to questions from the user (see here). That is after an ANI report by Mathsci against the user (ANI archive), which indicates that one source of friction involved a mistaken belief by the user regarding Mathsci's username. The best (and only) way of handling the banned user is by a strict application of WP:DENY (I hate having to provide all this material which will only excite more trouble).
I am sort of torn about this one. But I believe that MathSci and Trev needs to stay away from each other, as much as possible. Thus, if remedy is changed to topic ban, some sort of user-talk interaction ban (at the very least) needs to be present. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps11:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Vecrumba
R&I would be much calmer if Mathsci stuck to content (on WP) and completely recused themselves from role of policeman/enforcer (anywhere on WP, not just R&I). It's time for his holier than thou to stop. Do we really all have time to keep reading through his enforcement-related litanies?VєсrumЬа ►TALK23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by (yet another user)
Amendment 2
Review remedy 1.1.
Include an explicit warning that further battleground conduct by Mathsci towards editors that is related to the topic will be cause for discretionary sanctions.
Statement by The Devil's Advocate
It seems that Mathsci does not understand that the standard regime of discretionary sanctions under Remedy 5.2, which replaced Remedy 5.1, would also apply to his activities. He has claimed that WP:AE can only be used to report edits related to R&I on articles and their talk pages, or edits that violate a sanction and that he can thus only be sanctioned through a request for amendment. The following are some instances where he has made this mistaken claim:
Making it clear to Math that his conduct related to R&I anywhere on Wikipedia could be cited at AE as the basis for sanctions would seemingly help, together with the above amendment, in preventing Math from continuing in this disruptive conduct and allow these editors some breathing room to try and be productive elsewhere.
@Math The request I am making is so fundamentally different from the requests for arbitration that your claim it is "not very different" is just bizarre. As to the predictable accusation of proxy-editing, if you also wish to be "in contact off-wiki" with me that would be fine. Got mountains of evidence you wish to share privately? Feel free. Door's open dude. Oh, and sorry for leaving a notification on your talk page. I was on auto-pilot and forgot about your prior request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really want to keep this statement short and respect the privacy of the communication so I will give you the cliff's notes version of that rather anticlimactic e-mail. He feels the arbitration request was respecting what was said by the Arbs, he preferred on-wiki suggestions other than the one I previously made on-wiki and am making here, and said some inconsequential stuff about you that I have not alluded to here at all. All in all, I do what I want.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@John, I understand the desire to deny recognition, but there are more ways to deny recognition than RBI. Sometimes a much more concise and successful approach is if you remove the R. Certain things just aren't worth clicking undo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, I am not suggesting some sort of new remedy for Math. Effectively my suggestion with this second amendment is redundant as Remedy 5.2 already says any editor making any edits related to R&I anywhere on Wikipedia can be sanctioned if those edits violate policy. Basically my suggestion is to drive the point home by adding something like "and warned that continued battleground behavior anywhere on Wikipedia relating to R&I broadly construed could lead to sanctions under Remedy 5.2", or something to that effect, to his admonishment. That way he is not under the impression that his actions in userspace, or any other non-article space, are exempt from discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@CIreland I don't think that's a very good idea. Just like the current restriction against Trev and Sight it would be so broad as to be just another cause for useless drama. How does someone know the edit belongs to a specific sockmaster? If someone is unaware of the restriction how do we react? There is no conceivable way such a new restriction would do anything but create more problems.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Repetitive attempts to divert this into a discussion about a banned editor should not be indulged by the Arbs. I have only mentioned the issue here to help illustrate the inherent problem with the restriction against Trev and Sight. That they are not allowed to object to an individual directly engaging them in a combative manner is the problem here, regardless of whether one feels the combativeness is justified or not. Math's mistaken belief that he cannot be subject to discretionary sanctions as long as he avoids editing articles and talk pages relating to the topic area is another matter that needs to be addressed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger I am attempting to minimize disruption to this request. Getting more editors to comment here is not helping in that respect, considering the issue you are raising is not really relevant to the request I am making (Math and Trev could have been fighting over the color of Master Chief's armor for all that I care). Can you honestly say right now that Trev being unable to comment on Math's conduct, when Math can directly engage Trev in a combative manner without worrying about his conduct being reported by Trev, is really serving to prevent disruption? Regardless of what prompted the situation, the situation itself did not play out in a way that suggests the restriction is helping to minimize disruption. I believe the best way to prevent disruption to the project would be to consider my two amendment requests, and not support any unprecedented restriction that disregards a long-standing community consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Math You can't just say "this person is definitely a sock" on their user page, or on your user page, without ever having an SPI filed that confirms your allegations. I know from reviewing the history that you do not have a perfect record when it comes to accusing people of being socks, so I don't think anyone should just take your word for it. However, this is not the place for that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just like to add that I would have asked on Math's talk page for him to remove these allegations or file an SPI to substantiate them, but I am respecting his desire that I not comment on his talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Math, if you wish to discuss this matter with me, you can comment on my talk page. I am not going to debate the quality of a classical music article in a request for amending a case that pertains to Race and Intelligence. I will say that you should be mindful of a saying about glass houses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@John, Trev clearly answered Roger's question at the very beginning of his initial statement.
@Math, the comment restored by the Echigo sock was a previous suggestion for a legitimate clean start and made no direct reference to you. Afterwards, Sinebot mistakenly added the new sock's signature and Trev removed that signature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@John, did you read the rest of the discussion at Jclemens' talk page? Mathsci's comments there were not exactly about Echigo mole. As to your quote from Roger Davies, I should note that during the review case he touched on the issue of Mathsci removing comments by the very same banned editor from the talk pages of other editors and said:
While reverting posts by a banned user is an option, Mathsci shouldn't be doing so from user talk pages in the face of the user's opposition to him doing so. Accordingly, I don't think the latest revert yesterday was either wise or appropriate, especially as the post was neither extreme nor offensive nor a personal attack on Mathsci. This is provocative battleground behaviour.
I have already made several statements in private to the arbitration committee prior to this request being posted concerning the interactions between TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate. Apart from omitting all mention of MastCell, this request does not seem very different from TrevelyanL85A2's very recently rejected RfAr and also not very different from the RfAr of Keystone Crow that was removed almost immediately by Courcelles. The only thing that might be worth pointing out here is that The Devil's Advocate has been in contact off-wiki with TrevelyanL85A2. The Devil's Advocate is also himself under a 6 month topic ban under WP:ARB911. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My content edits are disjoint from the topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I and have been for two years. Nothing new has happened since the recent review apart from the reappearance on wikipedia of two of the parties that chose not to comment during the review. Arbitrators, in particular Casliber and Elen of the Roads, suggested that arbcom should be kept informed of any problems from the DeviantArt group of editors. The on-wiki and then off-wiki communications between The Devil's Advocate and TrevelyanL95A2 were of that kind.[155][156] At the moment The Devil's Advocate seems to be acting on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2, after communicating at least once in private. The banned wikihounder Echigo mole/A.K.Nole is a red herring, a red herring that appears to be on holiday at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Echigo mole/A.K.Nole was discussed at length during the review along with Mikemikev in response to one of the five questions of Roger Davies. There is no reason why the review should be revisited just because The Devil's Advoacate missed it first time round. He does not seem fully aware of the background and has preferred to take private advice on the review from TrevelyanL85A2 who, although undoubtedly aware of what was happening in the review, chose not to participate even after being added as a party. Like the DeviantArt group, including the two site-banned users Occam and Ferahgo, The Devil's Advocate has chosen to concentrate matters on the banned user Echigo mole/A.K.Nole, a long term wikihounder, with a whole sleeping sock farm created in 2009. Echigo mole is engaged in acts of deception, harassment and disruption. The responses above of the Devil's Advocate do not seem helpful. The Devil's Advocate made a conscious decision to engage in private discussions with a topic banned user on matters he knew could not be discussed on wikipedia. That private exchange unfortunately now connects The Devil's Advocate with other members of the DeviantArt group, including the site-banned editors Occam and Ferahgo. On the talk page of an arbitrator,[157][158] The Devil's Advocate has also pressed to see private evidence provided during the review (i.e. by Occam and Ferahgo). To my knowledge nobody except arbitrators has been shown that evidence. Apart from one exception fairly late on, I was not shown any submissions provided by Occam or Ferahgo. On-wikipedia and off-wikipedia (on Wikipediocracy) The Devil's Advocate has made a series of statements about parties involved in the review which show either confusion or a mireading of the review and the preceding request for amendment. That might be an accident on his part. For example during the review historic versions of the Fur Affinity attack pages were displayed (here, here. here) but The Devil's Advocate, from his statements on Wikipediocracy, only had access to later versions, after offensive comments had been removed. I am not aware of other circumstances where a single user has made a request for a review to be rerun after he missed it first time round. That would appear to be a waste of everybody's time. The Devil's Advocate has gone further by involving himself in private communications with part of the DeviantArt group and making a series of unjustifiable assertions. Perhaps that was not his intention, but his submission favours banned disruptive trolls, known to arbitators, other checkusers and administrators, over established editors engaged in improving this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Echigo mole has unfortunately become active again as Rue Cardinale(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Editors should be aware that the username Rue Cardinale was chosen because it is the road in which I live in Aix-en-Provence; in the past sockpuppets of Echigo mole, now blocked, have attempted to write hoax or undue content about that street on wikipedia. The edits of this particular sock troll, blocked indefinitely by FPaS, were removed from User talk:TrevelyanL85A2 by Hipocrite and then restored by TrevelyanL85A2 with a bizarre edit summary.[159] MastCell's analysis of TrevelyanL85A2's edits (vis-a-vis Echigo mole) hits the nail on the head. Why are people wasting time with this nonsense? Penwhale, you could easily have double checked with FPaS. Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate left problematic comments on Newyorkbrad's talk page.[162] I reported those at WP:WQA where another report about TDA had recently been filed. Only in death heavily edited my comment there, without any justification. Prior to posting here Only in death posted twice on my talk page, once after being explicitly requested not to, because I was (and still am) busy adding quite tricky mathematical content spread over several articles. The edits of Only in death were unhelpful and discourteous on WP:WQA; he is now treating this arbcom page as if it were WP:ANI. Ah yes, ... that famous peanut gallery. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only in death, please do not remove editors' comments on wikipedia pages, whether you agree with them or not. Doing so is just disruptive and can result in blocks. You can remove them on your talk page, but not elsewhere, except in exceptional circumstance. Per WP:DENY, that includes malicious trolling by idenitified community banned editors. I removed all the fake RfAR notifications in June by Keystone Crow that had not already been removed by the recipients (e.g. MastCell). Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger: I have never banned people from editing my user talk page. When there is a more appropriate place for them to edit or if their edits are unhelpful, I politely request that they do not comment there. I think that happened with Andriabenia(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), who turned out be a sockpuppet of a banned user. My talk page has been semiprotected at various stages because of abusive edits by either Mikemikev or Echigo mole. Although my memory is fuzzy about wikipedia in March, I think the protection then happened because of the horrific youtube links added by Mikemikev after the death of Steven Rubenstein. Since you ask. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QFAK: there was no edit war, but you have continued to make exaggerated claims. There were two edits on May 27 to remove a trolling comment by an ipsock of Echigo mole from his standard IP range (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole); and one edit on June 10 to remove the notification by Keystone Crow(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) of an abusive RfAR that was deleted instaneously by Courcelles who simultaneously blocked the Echigo mole sock. Similar messages were removed by me from about 10 other user pages. Here once more is the edit history for [[user talk:once again: [163] Johnuniq removed the fake RfAr notification two further times in June after TrevelyanL85A2 restored it twice (with no clear benefit to either himself or wikipedia, as Johnuniq has said). Mathsci (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither AQFK not TDA has heeded the warning from Newyorkbrad. Both have repeated false claims of edit warring (see above). Both these editors have been subject to several arbcom restrictions before (in AQFK's case 6 months for 911 and and two years for CC). Neither of them know me from Adam, yet base their exaggerated rants on 2 edits by me in late May and early June. The recent edits of Rue Cardinale(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), were reverted by others. But no, they are only interested in those two minor edits, both justified by WP:DENY. If that isn't trolling on arbcom pages, what is? Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2's response is almost indistinguishable from the statements of Ferahgo-the-Assassin that led to her site ban. It can be safely be presumed that it was prepared in collaboration with her and Captain Occam. The most shocking part of TrevelyanL85A2's statement is his blithe endorsement of Echigo mole's editing as Keystone Crow(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Echigo mole is a community banned editor and TrevelyanL85A2 is not at liberty to give him the thumbs up. (Just before his site-ban, Occam behaved similarly acting as a proxy for Grundle2600.) The second problem is with TrevelyanL85A2's mentioning of a "dispute". There is no dispute. There is, however, an explicit topic ban which prohibits TrevelyanL85A2 from agitating against me in an Occamesque way on wikipedia. He is doing so now. Presumably he expressed himself in the same way in his private discussions with TDA which preceded this meritless request. Neither of them should have engaged in that activity.[164] TrevelyanL85A2 seems to think he can interpret the rules of wikipedia as it suits him: it's all a big WP:GAME. But that is not how wikipedia works. It is primarily about creating scholarly articles to build a high quality encyclopedia; it is not a role-playing war game. Possibly on the advice of others, TrevelyanL85A2 chose not to comment in the review, when he was free to make any statements he wished (within reasonable bounds). That is not the case now. Using Roger Davies' question as a loophole to launch a full-blown Ferahgian attack on me, with fatuous claims about me, is not a good sign. Instead of condemning Echigo mole's harrassment, he has chosen to use Keystone Crow's RfAr as evidence against me. The idea that 3 meritless arbcom requests, two of them due to him and the first to a pernicous banned troll, must indicate something. Does TrevelyanL85A2 really think he can use the actions of a banned editor to make negative statements about me. It is hard to see any redeeming features in TrevelyanL85A2's editing. His account looks like a disruption-only account at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate was asked to stop commenting here by Newyorkbrad. [165] Instead of heeding that warning, he wikilawyered on NYB's talk page [166] and continued his pro-Echigo mole campaign here.[167]Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (and other arbitrators): Thank you very much for this clarification, which is a welcome relief to me as the victim of Echigo mole. During the arbcom review I was specifically asked about harassment on wikipedia and I gave a detailed response concerning both Echigo mole and Mikemikev. There was no corresponding finding. That has left matters open for continued disruption connected with Echigo mole's activities, in particular Echigo mole's fake Rfar, TrevelyanL85A2's declined Rfar and this joint RfAm of The Devil's Advocate (apparently prepared in consultation with TrevelyanL85A2). In the event that there is a motion concerning Echigo mole, please could it make an explicit statement about the history of long term harassment and the way in which this person has systematically tried to create problems? (In the review I indicated that he had even given evidence in the original 2010 R&I case as "IP from Sheffield".) Since the closure of the review, quite a lot of time on wikipedia has been consumed by the renewed activity of Echigo mole. It unfortuantely requires vigilance on my part because of his penchant for leaving clues as to my real life identity, which other users will not necessarily pick up on as quickly as me. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate was given a crystal clear warning by Newyorkbrad, as mentioned above. He has subsequently ignored that warning.[168] This problematic conduct is not very different from the disruption that precipitated his six month 911 topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2 seems to have broken his topic ban on his user talk page two more times now.[169][170] He appears to be breaking all the editing norms on wikipedia, including acting as a proxy for two site-banned users. He has written on his user talk page: " I don't know if I can get the arbitrators to understand the part of the problem for which Mathsci is responsible, but I want to try." That is a flagrant breach of his topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate's latest edits concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole: Please could arbitrators instruct The Devil's Advocate to stop interfering with matters related to sockpuppets of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole? He removed Junior Wrangler from a list of suspected sockpuppets in the userspace of a declared alternative account where a provisional LTA file is stored (mainly before I had access to the tools to do searcher over IP ranges). Junior Wrangler's first edit to Spirella matches early A.K.Nole hoaxes, he edited Talk:Château of Vauvenargues; and the choice of username followed by low-level mathematics editing are typical A.K.Nole.[171] He also removed the "suspected sockpuppet" tag on User:Penny Birch.[172] This also seems to be an occarionally used, partially discarded account operated by Echigo mole. The timing of the creation is right, the choice of user name, the first edits like those of A.K.Nole and his friends (Kenilworth Terrace and Groomtech, first editing together as The Wiki House) concerned the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham. The editing on Talk:Château of Vauvenargues matches that of Junior Wrangler. The activities of both have been sporadic enough not to be susceptible to checkuser (like the editors creating hoaxes earlier this year on articles related to Aix-en-Provence and Rue Cardinale). The Devil's Advocate has been told to stay well away from anything concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole on wikipedia. Often the banned user's edits refer to my real life identity, sometimes my own publications or lectures. I don't really want The Devil's Advocate now digging about for details in edits which have not been deleted, unduly causing me distress and anxiety. That ahows no consideration for the problems connected with abusive wikihounding; in fact quitr the comtrary, these actions are disruptive and deliberately provocative, designed to cause offense. (That was already true of the Request for Amendment itself.) The Devil's Advocate should also stay out of the userspace of my alternative accounts. The instructions from Newyorkbrad on his talk page were very clear: that he should leave matters concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole well alone. At this stage, he seems to be doing the exact opposite of what arbitrators have requested him to do. He has needlessly made edits in the userspace of one of my alternative declared accounts reserved for recording information about Echigo mole socks and ip socks (in one edit summary The Devil's Advocate added the words WP:POLEMIC when removing a listed suspected sock). If he cannot avoid making edits like this related to Echigo mole and suspected socks, please could he now be blocked to stop further disruption and provocation? This has gone on long enough and it's only getting worse as he continues doing exactly the opposite of what he's been told. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More nonsense from The Devil's Advocate.[173] In that diff, he makes negative comments about Clavier-Übung III, which I understand is regarded as a well written article. I have no idea why The Devil's Advocate feels that he has to follow me around on wikipedia, making negative remarks like this. It's quite unhelpful. Perhaps he's trying to emulate Echigo mole as a wikihounder? One is quite enough. Mathsci (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68's comments about my wikistalker seem unhelpful and clueless. I hope that Newyorkbrad's motion is now enacted so that there is no possibility that any form of this time-wasting RfAm can occur at a future date. Let sleeping dogs lie. Mathsci (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2's priorities seem misplaced as far as the interests of wikipedia are concerned. There is no reason to distinguish between different socks of the same banned user, e.g. the ipsock 94.197.162.237, the sock Keystone Crow or the sock Rue Cardinale. The two edits I made on May 27 and the one edit on June 10 are no longer under discussion. Two arbitrators have commented on how to handle Echigo mole's disruption. TrevelyanL85A2 appears not to have heeded their comments. Instead he has tried to reopen and prolong a discussion concerning Echigo mole and his other favourite topic. [174][175][176]Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any edits in the IP ranges 94.197.1.1/16 and 94.196.1.1/16 that vaguely concern me have been made exclusively by Echigo mole. That is easy enough to check using the usual tools.[177] Arbitrators and other checkusers have long been aware of that. The negative nature of the edits of this banned user is not open for debate. On the other hand, in what now appear to be a series of calculated bad faith edits, The Devil's Advocate has taken the opposite point of view.[178] The Devil's Advocate appears to be spending his time justifying or enabling the edits of a community banned sock troll. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2 has requested that The Devil's Advocate lobby arbitrators because he is still unsatisfied.[179] After a two week wikibreak, Trevlyanl85A2 has stated, "I think maybe if you go to one of the arbitrators about this, it should be someone other than Roger Davies. I don't trust Roger Davies to know how to resolve the current situation, because I think he has some responsibility for why it exists. He was the one who proposed that SightWatcher and I be given interaction bans with everyone who's edited R&I articles, at a time when I hadn't edited them in four months and SightWatcher hadn't edited them in a year."Mathsci (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens has unrecused himself. Could he please now comment on the issues concerning Echigo mole socks that other arbitrators have raised? No other arbitrators have made any suggestion that I have been "gaming the system", so Jclemens seems to be alone on that. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three users have initiated requests of this kind all related to the trolling of a banned user: Keystone Crow, TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate. All three of these editors are subject to restrictions of some type on their editing (e.g. the first is blocked as a sock of the banned user). If anybody has any bright ideas about how to stop Echigo mole and his socks creating disruption on wikipedia that would be welcome. Nobody has been able to so far. I don't edit in R&I nor did I start this request. My editing history is clear enough: mostly content edits in geometric function theory at the moment requiring a lot of effort. Vecrumba seems to have mistaken me for another user, I'm not quite sure who.Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad has suggested adding a second motion to AGK's motion. Since SightWatcher has now commented here in a highly problematic way, perhaps more is required. Previously SightWatcher was given this warning by an arbitrator [181] which at that stage apparently he took to heart.[182] Prior to that MBisanz and Ed Johnston gave SightWatcher unequivocal warnings that he would be given a lengthy block if his editing patterns did not change.[183] After a 6 week wikibreak he has ignored the warnings and made militating edits above that are indistingusihable from the project space edits of Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin. With only 4 very minor content edits in the last 12 months, and now more evidence of proxy-editing and violations of his topic ban, even after mutiple warnings from administrators, what exactly is SightWatcher doing on this project apart from acting as a harassment-only account on behalf of site-banned users? Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this second motion, although it would be completely appropriate for the particular banned user under discussion here, would not be universally applicable for all banned users, as various administrators and arbitrators have pointed out. Perhaps a third motion could be crafted specifically tailored to the particular community banned user and this particular context. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Johnuniq
Amendment 2 would provide R&I editors (and the banned user) with a tool to provoke Mathsci. Consideration of this amendment is not required now as there is no evidence of a problem (apart from the dilemma over whether WP:DENY should be applied to a banned user posting on the talk page of an R&I editor). If required, this matter can be addressed at some future time, if Mathsci becomes engaged in R&I topics with conduct that is believed to be unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TrevelyanL85A2: How does it help the encyclopedia to keep a message from a banned user? TrevelyanL85A2's comment at "01:40, 5 August 2012" was made just before removing the Sinebot signature of the banned user's name (diff)—why not remove the message? Hipocrite removed the message (rv banned user) and that edit summary explains the situation. Yet, without seeking clarification, TrevelyanL85A2 restored the message (Please do not remove edits others have made to my talk page without my consent. I keep an open door policy on my page, please respect my wishes). Editors are supposed to use Wikipedia to help the encyclopedia, and encouraging a banned user due to an "open door policy" is not a good use of a talk page. The question posed by Roger Davies at "11:08, 27 July 2012" remains unanswered. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The word "gaming" has been used a number of times, but I am perplexed by the recent mention of gaming at 03:13, 16 August 2012 by Jclemens. It is very understandable that Mathsci would want DENY applied to a long term abuser who has been harassing Mathsci—indeed, that's something we all should want, and there would be no issue if TrevelyanL85A2 did not insist on a right to keep comments from the banned user. I think Roger Davies (at 16:51, 3 August 2012) summed up the situation well with "to characterise Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming is really appalling".
Is it this comment by Mathsci (see thread here) that is regarded as "gaming"? That is just a plain description of what had occurred—TrevelyanL85A2 can easily avoid issues like that by not commenting on R&I: just stick to the question of whether there is a right to retain harassing comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Silver seren
I'm not sure about whether the Amendments should or should not be enacted, though bullet 2 of Amendment 2 makes logical sense to me, because it's quite clear that there is evidence of a problem. Mathsci has been clearly gaming the system in order to remove perceived opponents from the topic area, taking actions that are sure to provoke a desired response so an Enforcement request can then be filed against the person. Seriously, at this point, I think everyone needs to truly consider blocking Mathsci for some period of time for his rampant and obvious gaming and, to be honest, harassment of other users. SilverserenC10:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: Whether the user is a sock or not, it was indeed appropriate for me to be notified, considering my involvement in the prior discussion, and the notification itself was neutral. SilverserenC11:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: I also restored the comment on my talk page, as did Penwhale on theirs. Any user is allowed to restore the edits of a banned user so long as they aren't a copyvio or attacking another user, per WP:BAN. SilverserenC22:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor marginalia: You should take care not to only quote the parts of the policy you like and ignore the rest, as BAN clearly states that any user is allowed to reintroduce the edits of a banned user so long as the edits do not violate our policies, are copyvios, or are attacking another person. And the attacking part is only for direct attacks. There's no Wikilawyering of "any edit by this person is an attack on this person" either, that would just be ridiculous. SilverserenC06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor marginalia: No, they shouldn't because that's not the point of that section of BAN. The point is that any editor is free to reinstate an edit by a banned user so long as the edit doesn't violate other policies. Therefore, anyone is allowed to reinstate comments on their talk page by a banned user if they want to, as I have done multiple times before, as have others. SilverserenC01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, please don't use bold print like that; it's unspeakably rude. Second, please explain why you object to Newyorkbrad's comment(s). Thanks, AGK[•]13:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because what he is suggesting is directly in conflict with the community written policy of WP:BAN and Arbcom has absolutely no jurisdiction over such. Any user is allowed to reinstate the edits of a banned user so long as the edit itself isn't violating other policies (copyvio, attacks, NPOV to some extent). In this case, Trev, myself, and others were reinstating a neutral message informing us of a discussion, which is something we are completely allowed to do within policy. SilverserenC03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Penwhale
Like I said above, MathSci probably needs to stay away from Trev's talk page. Beyound that, I am not sure what to do here.
There is no conceivable way in which repeatedly restoring the user-talkpage edits of a banned harrassment sockpuppet helps the encyclopedia. Restoring such edits - or litigating their restoration - appears to be TrevelyanL85A2's sole focus on Wikipedia over the past 6 months.
Presumably, the previous ArbCom restriction was crafted in the hope that TrevelyanL85A2 would find something, anything to do on Wikipedia besides continue these old disputes. It's obvious that's not going to happen. Every further second spent on this is a second wasted, and frankly the sheer volume of vexatious litigation associated with this editor-or-group-of-affiliated-editors rivals anything I've seen in the post-Abd era. MastCellTalk20:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A short statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
I concur with Penwhale that MathSci should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. However, I also concur with MastCell's observation that TrevelyanL85A2 has not contributed to Wikipedia in any meaningful way for the last six months. Indeed, TrevelyanL85A2 has not edited a single article since January 13, 2012.[184]A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: As an editor completely uninvolved in R&I, I correctly pointed out that you participated in an edit-war. Your claim that I come to this page "in response to the trolling edits of Echigo mole as Rue Cardinale" is flatly wrong. This page is on my watchlist and has been for quite some time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: I find it ironic that you would accuse me of continuing "to make exaggerated claims" when you were the one to bring up the edit-warring, not me. Anyway, back to what I was saying, I think you should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. There's no need for you personally to remove these posts. Let someone else do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MathSci: I've made two points:
1) I agreed with Penwhale that MathSci should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page.
2) I agreed with MastCell's observation that TrevelyanL85A2 has not contributed to Wikipedia for the last six months.
It was a very short statement. You're the one who keeps harping about edit-warring, not me. The battleground mentality that you're displaying for all the Arbs to see is highly disappointing, especially when you've already been admonished for this very same behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@MathSci: Editors may participate within reason in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned. By my own admittedly crude count, TrevelyanL85A2 has been mentioned by name over 30 times in this discussion, and I think that it's pretty clear that that the discussion on his talk page is a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK (as first proposer) and PhilKnight and Newyorkbrad (who voted in favor of this resolution), can you please explain why involved editors such as MathSci should be the only ones to enforce removal from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page? This seems to be the provervial 'elephant in the room.' Maybe this isn't your intent, but it is the result of the motion. Can you please explain further? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Professor marginalia
Games. Games. Games.
What's needed here is some serious introspection how the gaming (which is transparent, as I see it, and is frittering away frillions of hours of volunteer time here) can be curtailed. I don't have so much free time to give back to wikipedia lately but I'm here virtually every other day looking up something I want to know about. How does it seriously help this project to squander this much volunteer time in mindless, pointless bureaucratize over how and who to handle a site banned troll obviously stirring up crazy on another topic banned user's userpage? What difference does it make which editor removes those edits that which obviously don't belong here?
The last thing we need here is to give sanctioned troublemakers new avenues to disrupt. This has been a 2 years long clown circus already. Will restricting Mathsci from Trevelyan's talk page end this? How? Trevelyan's not the first - he's deliberately pressed those buttons to exploit the precedent when Ferahgo objected to Mathsci editing her talk page. And I'm half convinced she tacked that direction because she'd seen him chase editors off his own talk page. When others besides Mathsci removed the same comments, Trevelyan's objection persisted. Why except to escalate? Obviously Trevelyan'd read these comments already, and could return to them through edit history as we all appreciate as one of the strengths of this platform. So would it really result in less disruption to demand Mathsci appeal to a proxy to remove a banned troll's comments? How so? Off-site appeals, they won't like one bit and will decry as off-site collusion. On-site appeals they'll decry as "Mathsci who is restricted from such-and-such proxied the action be done by someone else".
To diagnose the games going on in R/I is difficult; blenderize reality TV, Tartuffe, Braveheart, Paddy Chayefsky, The Secret Agent, Scott Pilgrim and you'd get some sense of the aroma of the wikinutty that wafts in to wreak havoc with legit sourced content decision making. Mice at play. Then comes arbcom, and Bleak House gets tossed in the blender.
I think to curtail the gaming we need to stop rewarding it. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2012
Relevant policy position:
A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good [..] Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. (WP:BAN) Professor marginalia (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverseren: The sections I quote above make no reference to "attacks", expressed or implied. If an editor supports the message or content of an edit made by banned editor on a talk page they should sign their own name to it rather than further enable banned users to continue editing via socks. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad - Please make an motion to that effect. An unofficial statement from an arb won't be enough to deter disruption in these situations because key players are now using the trolling as openings. It's a ploy, much like we've seen over and over for more than 2 years. They aren't seeking constructive advice. It's all been about exploiting every opportunity. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Only in Death
I dont particularly want to be here as I have quite a bit of respect for Mathsci and his work, but his needling of his opponents is going to far. This [185] is particularly troubling for me as its basically taking potshots at TDA over a completely unrelated matter to himself (an issue with a GA review for gods sake) and he is using this request, and NYB's (and TDA's issue with them) comments below to do it. It contributes towards showing his relentless attack-mode mentality when he is pursuing a target and it needs to stop. Its got to the point where his actions are impacting on other editors, ones completely unrelated to his issues with his sockpuppet harrassers. And its totally un-necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wishes to look further, please check the history of WQA and Mathsci's talkpage. As he has requested I dont post to his talkpage because it 'disturbs his difficult content editing' I will not be taking his inapproprite spreading of his conflict further with him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional - if anyone wishes to take up my actions in removing part of Mathsci's comments at WQA (someone else has reverted his edits here - no idea why), feel free to ask via email or on my talkpage as I do not want to disrupt this further by agitating Mathsci any more. Suffice to say I think the above interactions demonstrate why R&I case needs amending/clarifying as per TDA has outlined. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger - Just FYI, I respect Mathsci's wish to not have people post on his talkpage if he so chooses. Unfortunately I didnt see the request until after my second post at which point I promptly self-reverted it, although I suspect the damage was done and his concentration already broken for a second time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by CIreland
Echigo mole is an extremely pernicious banned sockpuppeteer who has long pursued a vendetta against Mathsci; the very length of this behaviour must itself be disturbing for Mathsci. Additionally, Echigo mole has repeatedly attempted to intimidate Mathsci with "We know where you live" style edits, referencing Mathsci's place of residence.
One of the favorite tactics of Echigo mole is to seek out editors with whom MathSci is in dispute precisely to make it difficult for Mathsci to remove edits to their User talk pages without creating tension. This very amendment request, so far as it concerns Mathsci, enables and extends this abuse even if such was not the intent of the filer.
What is needed in order to address this long-standing problem is not any form of restriction or sanction for Mathsci but rather a remedy that prohibits the restoration of edits by Echigo mole's sockpuppets. Although such is not permitted by the current policy, I would personally like to see Revision Deletion of such edits allowed in order to mitigate against the possibility of editors not wholly aware of the background restoring problematic edits in good faith. Such good faith restorations have occurred in the past and have only served to further Echigo mole's agenda by drawing Mathsci into conflict. CIreland (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by TrevelyanL85A2
I was not planning to comment here, but Roger Davies is asking me a question so I'll answer it.
There are two reasons I don't want Echigo Mole's posts in my user talk to be removed. First, I care about having the the right to decide what I do and don't want in my user talk, even if it's from a sock, as long as it doesn't violate policies. Echigo Mole's conduct elsewhere might be objectionable, but his posts in my user talk were just notifications or civilly-worded advice. Keeping it there doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC or anything else.
Second, I object to which editors are removing it and what I think their reason is. I would object much less if it were done by an uninvolved admin. Mathsci has said a few times he regards his dispute with me as an extension of his dispute with Ferahgo, and refers to me as "unfinished business". [186] The other editors removing the posts, Johnuniq and Hipocrite, also are Ferahgo's and Captain Occam's old opponents. It feels like this group is trying to perpetuate their old dispute in my user talk, and I don't want that.
This began when I had been trying to avoid this group of editors since January. After avoiding them and the R&I topic for a few months, I realized I could not do anything to make them leave me alone. Part of how I realized this was that I saw at the same time Mathsci also was removing posts from SightWatcher's user talk, and making new accusations about him in arbitration discussions, at a time when SightWatcher had avoided this group and the R&I topic for the past year. How can I ever escape this conflict if Mathsci even pursues people who had nothing to do with him and his articles for the past year? There is nothing I can do.
If you count the arbitration request the sockpuppet made in June, this is the third time this issue has been brought before ArbCom in two months. And each time, the group of editors objecting to Mathsci's conduct is a little larger than it was before. If the arbitrators decline to act on this request, what do they hope will happen? The community clearly is not able to resolve it. If ArbCom rejects this request now, it probably will just continue to grow and end up on their plate again in another month.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies: I didn't realize when "Rue Cardinale" commented in my user talk that this name meant something. However please note this was not one of the socks that Mathsci reverted. All of Mathsci's reverts in my user talk were of comments from socks that had inoffensive names, or were posting from IPs. As Mathsci never reverted this sock, it's inaccurate to say his reverts were justified because of its username.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by aprock
Short and sweet: Echingo Mole wins. A motion which clarifies his role in this soup stirring is about the only good that can come out of this mess. aprock (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Enric Naval
Trev's excuses are noww bordering in ridiculous. He removes only the offending username[187]saying that the comment itself wasn't removed specifically by Mathsci [188]. But this was twice removed by mathsci, and reverted by Trev while asking Mathsci not to edit his talk page again[189][190], a petition that he repeated later.[191] That's why someone else removed it, because Trev didn't accept Mathsci's removals. Oh, wait, it's even more ridiculous that I thought. Trev is saying that community-banned harassing socks can post anything they like as long that specific edit doesn't make a harassment[192]. Please end this circus of excuses.
There are some obvious things that need to be made more obvious. Please make a motion saying explicitly and clearly that nobody should restore the edits of harassing socks, independently of who removes them. If Trev or anyone else restores any of those comments again, block them immediately and remove the comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.
Statement by yet another editor
The only question worth answering here is if Mathsci (or anyone else) has the right to remove the comments of an abusive sockpuppeter per WP:DENY after having been restored and responcibility for them taken on by Trev.
if yes, Trev is to cease restoring the text when removed by someone (including Mathsci) citing WP:DENY.
if no, Mathsci (and others) are to cease removing restored edits and any harassment or incivility contained in the restored edits are Trevs to answer for as if he personally wrote them. If the restored edits breach Trev's topic ban, he is responcible for that too.
"TDA's stage management activities even more inappropriate"? Are you all focusing on the big picture here? Please don't shoot the messenger. Address the concern. Are your rulings being played? If so, fix it and ban the editor who is doing so. If not, say so and explain why. Use some critical thinking, avoid myopia, and interpret this situation to the vision you had when you first ran for Arbcom. Stay focused. Cla68 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where in this diff is Mathsci's home address? How many of the offending diffs contain Mathsci's home address, and were they in response to Mathsci's actions? Look at both sides, please. Cla68 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, here in Japan in an automobile accident the authorities try to lay blame to both sides, because both sides usually deserve some blame. From reading the comments above, that is the situation here. I suggest using a sliding scale, what percentage to blame is the banned editor, and what percentage to blame is Mathsci and others? Assign a percentage, then give them an equivalent number of days vacation from Wikipedia. I guarantee you will see a change in their editing behavior. Cla68 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SightWatcher
I just noticed what Arbcom is suggesting here. I know The Devil's Advocate asked me to not comment but I have something to say about AGK's proposed amendment.
TDA made this request to address the problem of how Mathsci can deliberately provoke me and Trevelyan, and we can't do anything about it because we aren't allowed to comment on his behavior. I don't see how the proposed amendment will address that problem. I assume Mathsci would be considered an editor who has "made significant contributions" to the R&I topic, so the amendment won't change anything meaningful about the situation that led to this request, and the situation will just continue until Arbcom has to deal with it again.
I'm very confused by Arbcom's reluctance to address what I see as the central issue, which is Mathsci's battleground behavior. In the recent request about Youreallycan, a few arbitrators said something that needs addressing about YRC's behavior is how he's trying to mount an offense against the editors criticizing him instead of addressing others' concerns about his behavior (see for example SirFozzie's comment here). AFAICT, the request was declined only because the RFC needs to finish first. How is Mathsci's recent behavior different from YRC's? In this thread seven other editors in addition to me and Trevelyan have taken issue with Mathsci's behavior: The Devil's Advocate, Penwhale, Silver Seren, A Quest for Knowledge, Only in Death, Vecrumba, and Cla68. Mathsci's response is several screens of text attacking these editors, including about things that have nothing to do with the requested amendment (such as The Devil's Advocate's topic ban from 9/11 articles).
A few months ago Mathsci did the same thing in this thread and SilkTork warned him [193] that he was showing the same battleground attitude he'd just been admonished for. Mathsci dismissed SilkTork's warning as "trolling". [194] I expressed concern here that this meant Mathsci's behavior that SilkTork warned him about was going to continue, and I was right.
Arbcom knows that an admonishment and then an additional warning from an arbitrator wasn't enough to change Mathsci's battleground behavior, and they think this behavior needs addressing when someone else does it. The community also seems to be being very clear that they think Mathsci's behavior is a large part of the problem. Arbcom has a responsibility to serve the community, and they have a responsibility to be consistent about what type of behavior is allowed. It seems like they also should care about finding a solution that won't make them have to keep dealing with the same situation again and again. -SightWatcher (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 2
Statement by Guerillero
I strongly urge the arbs to reject the newest motion. As Silk Tork correctly pointed out, any editor can restore edits made by a banned editor or edit on a banned editor's behalf if they take responsibility for the edit(s) and independently think that the edits are allowed under the other wikipedia polices (WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors and WP:BAN#Conduct towards banned editors). The motion, especially this sentence "Editors are hereby warned that restoring the reverted edits of site-banned former users is not only strongly discouraged but may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment.", rewrites this policy. Open a RfC if you must but please don't write new policy. --Guerillero | My Talk22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Guerillero. By phrasing the motion in general, the motion goes against current policy and common sense. So if a banned user makes an edit fixing a typo, and some editor undoes that typo fix, this motion would say every other editor is "strongly discouraged" to revert to fix that typo, and it "may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment"? What was going though the minds of the arbs that supported this? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Roger Davies, Casliber. In "A is not only B but may also be C", "may" only restricts C, not B. It's the same as "A is B and may be C". Fortunately it appears you've moved on, though the new motion has different problems. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Heim
I'm totally sympathetic to this motion, but it's problematic because it appears to go further than existing policy states. There's no question that sometimes allowing a banned user's edits is necessary, per Gimmetoo. I also don't think it's necessary to state that restoring banned users' edits is very often disruptive and can lead to sanctions; that's already pretty clearly in policy as written. It all needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. Instead of some general note which either reaffirms existing policy (not necessary) or writes new policy (out of scope), go directly to sanctioning or admonishing the editors responsible in this case, which seems pretty clearly against policy (restoring talk page comments by a serial harasser seem clearly afoul of "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits", which is there in the policy right now, no motion needed). Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by TrevelyanL85A2
I predict I'll have more to say after the new motion gets posted, but at the moment I have something to say about Roger's comment "There's also a world of difference between restoring content and restoring the post lock, stock and barrel, especially when the banned user has used the username as the way of delivering the toxic payload." As soon as Roger Davies pointed out in this thread that the name "Rue Cardinale" was inappropriate, I removed that part of the post. I'm sorry I didn't remove it faster, but I didn't realize this was an offensive username until Roger mentioned that. Is it appropriate to punish me for how long I took to remove the offensive username, when I removed it as soon as I learned that was the right thing to do?
As I said above, this was not one of the socks that Mathsci reverted. Therefore, how socks with inappropriate usernames should be handled is a separate issue from Mathsci's treatment of me in my user talk, in Jclemens' user talk, and at AN and AE. Even if I get no additional sanctions in this thread, having the thread closed with only a general warning still punishes me indirectly. The issue that TDA tried to raise in this thread has completely sapped my motivation to edit for a few months, so it would also be a sort of punishment for ArbCom to decide they don't care about it and to let it continue. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles and Elen, please listen to what Mathsci said below. Echigo Mole's posts that I restored had nothing to do with race and intelligence, and he was banned by the community for socking, not because of anything R&I related. As far as I know, he hasn't edited race and intelligence articles ever. Everything involving Echigo Mole does not really relate to race and intelligence. The only way this issue involves R&I is that Mathsci's degree of attention to me might be because he and I both edited those articles in the past, and I'm not allowed to say anything about him because of my R&I topic ban. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles' formulation below has the advantage of specifically naming Echigo mole. Even if it feeds the troll, it does seem to be what is required here. His proposal is also completely in line with what NYB has been suggesting. If I understand correctly, Newyorkbrad's intention through any such a motion was to create a means of ending once-and-for-all the cycle of disruption connected with Echigo mole's edits that started almost as soon as the R&I review was closed. Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate is calling the edits of Keystone Crow(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) innocuous and refers to the reversion of his edits as "an obscenely strict interpretation of WP:BAN by Mathsci and other editors". The RfAr "Mathsci and Echigo Mole" was immediately deleted by Courcelles, the Keystone Crew account checkuser blocked, confirmed simultaneously as Echigo mole on User talk:Keystone Crow by Roger Davies, with an official rubber stamp 2 hours later from JamesBWatson at WP:SPI. Roger Davies has explained to The Devil's Advocate how complex it is sorting out serial sockpuppetry, harassment and wikihounding. The Devil's Advocate still seems to be editing here as if his original amendments might be passed. He has ignored all comments from arbitrators, even those specifically addressed to him. He is continuing to make outspoken comments about issues involving Echigo mole's sockpuppetry: on this page he is giving his own "expert" evaluation of whether outing might have occurred and sharing his views on whether every attempt to deal with possible wikihounding issues has been successful. Please could this stop? Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No arbitrator has criticized reverting any of the edits of Keystone Crow(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). Why is The Devil's Advocate wasting everybody's time by promoting the edits of a community banned sock troll? Why is he twisting events in such an untruthful way? Arbitrators have patiently explained to him the pernicious nature of Echigo mole's edits. That has not registered after almost two months. In his appeal at WP:AE against a six month 911 topic ban, The Devil's Advocate presented a similarly distorted version of events which favoured himself and attempted to place others in a poor light. He was warned about his language there but failed to understand the warnings. (A typical example addressed to Cailil: "For fuck's sake! Once someone throws out the mass-murdering cannibal rapist comparison, I would think any half-decent admin would notice then immediately toss aside all procedural gobbledygook and act like a human being. It was harassment, not a personal dispute. You people have no credibility.") [195] There's very little difference between that outburst and his attention-seeking "performance" here. Does he really believe that changing his "amendments" into "motions" makes them any more acceptable? This pattern of repeatedly asking for the same thing having been told "no" is a severe case of WP:IDHT. The latest motion being proposed provides a means of handling any similar disruption in the future, whether he agrees with it or not. Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate most recent post now is misrepresenting arbitrators and administrators. He is already on his second topic ban this year (the first was imposed in February because of disruption connected with article rescue). Here are Courcelles' edits. [196][197] Here is what Roger wrote.[198] And here is the result of the SPI report "for the record", closed by JamesBWatson.[199]Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me The Devil's Advocate should read the comments that MastCell wrote on Risker's talk page (partially quoted below). They apply equally to him, motion or no motion. He was mentioned in the same diff. These "last minute stunts" of TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate seem ill-advised. Both of them risk being blocked if they continue to use Echigo mole's wikihounding as a means of harassing me. Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by The Devil's Advocate
I am going to reiterate that this is not really about banned editor comments. Mathsci could have engaged Trev in some other area on some other issue in a manner that would reasonably cause Trev distress and the problem would be the same. The current restriction means Trev cannot complain about an editor directly engaging him in a manner that causes him distress if that editor has made any contributions deemed to be R&I-relevant. We are here because of that, not because of a banned editor's comments being restored. I would also like to reiterate that Roger Davies, who is the Arb that has been spearheading this attempt at making the request about comments from banned editors, actually described identical conduct by Math as battleground behavior during the review case so there are mixed messages being sent on that point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting here for ease of reference. I'll repeat what I've just posted on my talk page about this. "I have since reconsidered. The primary factor was EM's use of a home address as a user name. This is outing, which ups the ante considerably, and that trumps by a large measure any minor misconduct. Another factor is that the sockmaster has subsequently been formally site-banned, which changes the position considerably with regard to reverting his edits." Roger Daviestalk21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the edits that initiated this did not contain any personal information whatsoever regarding Math with the sock you are talking about only showing up after this request was initiated. Secondly, Math's "home address" was not used, but the street where Math lives. Thirdly, Math plainly stated many times that he lives on that street since this first came up months prior so it is not an "outing" issue that a sock subsequently used it as a username and signature. Fourthly, the only reason the username entered into the equation is because that sock restored the IP sock's own comments to Trev's talk page and a bot auto-signed it despite there already being a signature from the previous sock. Finally, the moment you alerted Trev to the username containing personal information he removed that signature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trevelyan reinstated for no better reason than he keeps "an open door policy on [his] page". Per policy, he assumes responsibility for any reverted posts he reinstates. Roger Daviestalk22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and you have not demonstrated how Trev has actually failed to honor policy by doing so in this case as I plainly explained above. Even if you try to use the incident subsequent to me filing this request, Sinebot actually added the personal information about Mathsci by adding the new sock's signature to that comment because the bot did not recognize that the comment was already signed by the previous IP sock and the other editors simply removed and restored the material without giving much thought to the matter. Once you noted the issue with that signature, Trev removed it. The argument for Trev having engaged in some violation of policy involves nothing but conflating actions of Echigo mole elsewhere with actions in a specific instance where there is no clear harm except that brought on by an obscenely strict interpretation of WP:BAN by Mathsci and other editors. As an example of the problem with that interpretation, in the not-too-distant past Mathsci reverted the addition of a space between a variable and a colon at a math article on the basis of WP:BAN.
Clearly there are instances where this restriction would have an exceedingly punitive result should someone decide changes made by an Echigo sock are actually appropriate and reinstate them. There is a pretty compelling case to be made that editors frequently abuse the presence of a sock in a dispute as a way to win out in a content discussion or to shut down criticism of their conduct and I believe Mathsci's actions are a textbook case of that abuse. Enabling such exploitation further by creating new punitive restrictions against any editors who have a good-faith belief that a banned editor's actions in a specific case are harmless, rather than removing the existing punitive restriction that has made possible the disruption my request is specifically meant to address, is not going to prevent Echigo mole from causing havoc. Far from it, it will be a boon to Echigo who will simply use it as a way to create further distress in the hopes that it will eventually see Mathsci removed from the project.
Again, the whole matter is nothing but a sideshow. The push for some restriction regarding restoration of comments by Echigo mole is a misdirected effort that does not address the actual problem highlighted by this incident.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Math, I only clearly noted your reversion of several IP socks so your narrow focus on Keystone Crow appears to be an attempt at misdirection. That you reverted the addition of a space between a colon and a variable on the basis of WP:BAN clearly illustrates that you have taken this argument to an extreme in the past. I don't think you can provide any suitable explanation for how you could perceive the addition of a space between a colon and a variable as harassment. As to my comments about outing, they specifically pertain to the claims regarding the comment on Trev's talk page as that is being used to wrongly accuse Trev of outing and does not pertain to some general question of whether Echigo has engaged in outing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Math, I ask you to stop misrepresenting the facts. No arbitrator said anything about the Keystone Crow account specifically, but during the Review case Roger explicitly stated that your removal of comments by other socks from the talk pages of other R&I editors was battleground behavior. While Roger states that he no longer sees it that way, he has still clearly stated during the course of this amendment request that you should not be doing it and at least one other Arb, Brad, has said the same thing. Clearly there is criticism regarding, at the very least, your removal of these comments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems Math may have misunderstood, I was referring to the claim Mathsci made about the Arbs not criticizing the reverts of Keystone Crow. I was not saying that Arbs have not said anything about the account at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wording of the suggested motion
Although, I still object to this motion, since it seems likely to be implemented I would note that the wording " . . . the edits or the content of edits made by users banned or topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence" is problematic from a variety of perspectives. For one, Echigo mole has not been subject to any sanction connected with Race and Intelligence so it would not even technically apply to what we are talking about and there are a number of other issues. I would suggest the wording be amended to say " . . . the edits or the content of edits where there is a reasonable suspicion that the edits were made by a banned editor named in the review case" as that wording is so tight it easily covers the issue we are discussing (Echigo mole was explicitly mentioned in the review case) and "reasonable suspicion" accounts for the concerns Jclemens raised.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested motions
In the hope of getting my main request addressed I am putting forward wording for a motion I would like to see enacted regarding the restriction against Trev and Sight.
The wording of the restriction on SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 is replaced with "is indefinitely banned from making edits related to Race and Intelligence broadly construed across all namespaces. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future."
This eliminates the "comment on conduct" restriction and provides a road to appeal that is identical to that accorded to Ferahgo and Occam.
Since people keep saying they think Mathsci should not be editing these user talk pages I also would suggest another motion stating "Mathsci is advised to refrain from editing the userspace of editors sanctioned in respect of Race and Intelligence."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Johnuniq
Response to comments just above by The Devil's Advocate.
Is anyone seriously suggesting that a known troll is posting innocuous messages at Trev's talk? Messages that need to be retained? Someone like TDA should volunteer to monitor likely talk pages and revert such trolling themselves. DENY is all we have, and the mountains of pointless discussion about whether trolling should be restored by a "good faith" editor is nonsense—protecting the liberty of editors to restore what they want is not the role of Wikipedia. What would help would be for someone like TDA to take the time to explain to Trev that there is nothing personal when the victim of harassment reverts messages from a banned user. We understand that Trev would prefer certain opponents to keep away, but many of us would prefer Trev to revert the provocations once it is clear what they are—we can't all have what we want. Any suggestion that Mathsci is purposely reverting a banned user in order to poke the "owner" of the talk page is bizarre, although I agree with comments made elsewhere that it would be better if someone other than Mathsci would do the removal because that would assist DENY (giving the troll less thrill). But it is not easy for others to notice the subtle provocations, and there is no good way to proceed. Actually, there is one good way—just apply WP:RBI and impose sanctions on anyone supporting the harassment after due warning, but I suppose that would be too obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Professor marginalia
In the interest of reducing—as opposed to expanding—the hundreds of hours volunteers wasted babysitting silly games like these [200], [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214], [215]—— I think rather than imposing new terms which open new doors for gaming (banned and sanctioned users are likely brainstorming already), I'd urge a "last chance" warning be given saying the next time any of them play any more games like this they'll be banned indefinitely. And if they can't endure to have Mathsci, MastCell, Hipocrite or Johnuniq reverting the trolls? And that they simply must insist somebody else do it instead? I'd urge them instead to "get over it". It's a revert forcryingoutloud and there's no need (indeed, given the enormous time wasted babysitting these users already, it's unreasonable to even ask) that others bend over backwards, to double their work by requiring anybody transfer the task to another party. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TrevelyanL85A2. I don't see anybody here being "sanctioned"-yet. I do see attempts to draft a remedy that will "get through" some thick heads and bring an end to this madness. Two thirds of your edits for the past 2 years (on the heels of Captain Occam/Ferahgo's topic ban) have been spent mixed up in R/I drama. The troll posting on your user page was stirring up more R/I drama...and you wouldn't let it go away. And it's resulted in another 4? 5 months in dispute resolution? For every substantive edit to the project you've made elsewhere during this 2 year period, there are literally dozen of editors with dozens of edits each pulling time away from other things to deal with these petty, schoolyard antics. It's ridiculous! Stop. Move on. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TrevelyanL85A2-what do I think? I think you need to find something else to do with your wikipedia time than look for ways to "get even" with Mathsci. Or "get even" with anybody/everybody else who's caught you out (justifiably, I might add). Something else to do with your time than to try and piggy-back your grievances unto cases such as Miradre (another justifiably "called out" editor) for further reindeer gaming here. What I think is that the next time a post to your user page advising you how to "play a game" is reverted for being from a banned user you ..... let it go. Ignore it all. If you really want to contribute here, stop looking for ways to cause pointless crazy. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@TrevelyanL85A2-re: clarification-What do you mean, "tried leaving everything related to R/I alone for months"? You've done virtually nothing else for the past nine months. You had absolutely no edits since Jan 13 - returning in May just to to battle with Mathsci over the banned troll! Mathsci was DENYing a banned user, not harassing you. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by TrevelyanL85A2
I hope this is the right place to respond to the two comments above, it's hard to tell when the discussion is so fragmented. Both of you seem to assume that restoring Echigo Mole's posts in my user talk is something unusual that only a few people have done, or only people who are connected to R&I. It isn't. Offhand I can think of five other editors who have restored his comments in their user talk: Collect, [216][217] Trödel, [218][219] Nyttend, [220][221][222] Silver Seren, [223] and Penwhale. [224] There probably are more than that, but those are the five I can remember. None of these editors were involved parties in the R&I case or review, or have been sanctioned for anything related to R&I. Two of them, Nyttend and Penwhale, are admins.
I don't see how what I did is any different, but Mathsci singled me out about it, and now ArbCom also has singled me out. I'd like to know why. The sanction being voted on also will cover SightWatcher, who did not restore any posts by Echigo Mole. Why are you sanctioning a completely different group of editors from those who did the behaviour you consider a problem? --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor marginalia: What do you think I could do that would make a difference? I explained in my first statement in this thread that I already tried leaving everything related to R&I disputes alone for several months, and SightWatcher left it alone for a year. However, at the time when we'd avoided Mathsci and his articles for months, that didn't cause him to pay any less attention to either of us or stop trying to get us sanctioned. I also saw what happened to Miradre last year, who was an even better example. When Miradre tried to escape his dispute with Mathsci on R&I articles, Mathsci just brought his dispute to the articles Miradre was editing outside that topic area. I've learned that when an editor has made enemies in the R&I topic area, it will continue to affect them no matter what they do after that, even if they have avoided the topic for the past year or made no edits at all for a few months. I don't know what it would take to stop this drama, and I wish I knew, but experience shows that trying to avoid/ignore it isn't enough. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Professor marginalia: In January, Mathsci and a few other people complained about an edit I made on the human intelligence template that seemed constructive and noncontentious to me. I got warned about discretionary sanctions on R&I articles for that edit, and the admin who warned me said I should stay away from R&I articles. I didn't really understand why everyone was making such a big deal about it, and I decided to just stay away from Wikipedia completely a few months. That's why I made no edits between January and May, and it's what I mean when I say I left it alone for a few months. I would have stayed away for longer, but in May I discovered that people were still attacking me for my former involvement in R&I.
I'm not talking about Mathsci's reverts in my user talk, but rather his repeatedly bringing me up during the review and in this thread afterwards, even though by then I'd been disengaged from everything at Wikipedia for the past four months. Mathsci credits his doing this for my being sanctioned: [225] "In the end it worked and arbcom bit the bullet." When Mathsci was attacking SightWatcher in the same places, SightWatcher had made no edits related to him or R&I since May 2011. However, even at a time when SightWatcher had been disengaged from Mathsci and his articles for the past year, Mathsci still was bringing up accusations about him in arbitration discussions. I've learned from this that no matter how long an editor has avoided R&I disputes, whatever enemies they made on those articles will never leave them alone. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment by Mathsci
On User talk:Risker MastCell wrote,[226] "If it makes things any easier for you guys, I can tell you that the next time I see TrevelyanL85A2 or one of his close associates do anything remotely resembling enabling Echigo mole's harassment campaign, I'm going to block him indefinitely." That is exactly what is happening now. TrevelyanL85A2 was already blocked for one month for trying the above. According to his editing history, unfortunately it appears now that that is all he wants to do on wikipedia. He knows he cannot discuss me on wikipedia, so what does he do? He comes here and does exactly what he's prohibited from doing. Now apparently he claims that he's being persecuted because he's amongst six editors who had the fake notifications of Keystone Crew reverted from their user talk pages.[227][228][229][230][231] I didn't have to remove the notification on my talk page, because the admin Akhilleus kindly told me that the request had been nuked and the poster indefinitely blocked.[232][233] This RfAr was designed to scare me. Why then is TrevelyanL86A2 is doing his best to interpret those reverts in a bad light, as he has done repeatedly, and trying to claim quite falsely that he was singled out? WP:BAN is exactly for disruptive edits of this kind. TrevelyanL85A2's restored the edits twice to his page after they were reverted by me, Johnuniq and BullRangifer while he was under a one month WP:AE block. His talk page access was revoked for edit warring over edits of a banned user and the talk page protected by MastCell for the duration of the block.[234] So what actually happened is quite different from what TrevelyanL85A2 has written. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2 isn't allowed to mention anybody involved in R&I editing. And yet above he's now started making unsupported claims concerning Miradre, who was involved in the review, but has nothing to do with the discussion here This request was started by The Devil's Advocate with help from the wings from TrevelyanL85A2. They communicated off-wiki. I did not start this request for amendment and have not been seeking sanctions, since I have made no suggestions. MastCell has made a comment about TrevelyanL85A2 coming close to an indefinite block, not me. TrevelyanL85A2 is now using this request as a means of continuing the campaign of his site-banned friends. He has made the serious error above of discussing Miradre, who has nothing whatsover to do with him, this request for amendment or the issues he claims to have been worrying about. By opening a new discussion about other editors involved in R&I, he has not only violated his topic ban even further; but his excuse that he that he was trying to clarify matters for himself would appear not have been made in good faith. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that the wording of this motion is so exceedingly broad and restrictive as to be disruptive towards work to improve the encyclopedia. For one, "banned editor" is not clearly limited in the wording of the motion to the likes of Echigo mole and Mikemikev, but appears to be just a reference to all banned editors without consideration for whether they have any connection to this case at all. Second, the sanctions are described as applying to any reverted edit by such editors that "relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic" and that creates a whole recipe of trouble as "indirectly" can mean just about anything. Additionally by saying "related . . . to any editor associated with the R&I topic" one could take this as making pretty much every article to which these editors contribute subject to discretionary sanctions regarding the reverting of any edits made by any banned editors. Lastly, by making this apply to any editor it basically means that someone with no connection whatsoever to R&I can go to an article that has no connection to R&I, restore an edit made by a banned editor who has no connection with R&I, and then be subject to discretionary sanctions under R&I if the edit is seen as "indirectly related to an editor associated with R&I" because of this motion.
Honestly, I think any sort of general restriction on this question of restoring comments from banned editors is going to create more disruption then it will prevent. The disruption that prompted this request was not the result of a banned editor leaving comments or someone restoring those comments. Many editors who had such comments placed on their pages restored them without any serious problems resulting. What separated those editors from Trev is that all of them were allowed to complain about the conduct of the editors removing those comments. I submit that it is precisely because Trev's restriction barred him from complaining about their conduct that all of this has come about.
On that point I do have an idea for a middle-ground that should be satisfactory. Specifically, modify the restriction to say that it will not apply in situations where the other party initiated the interaction. In other words, Mathsci can't go to Trev's talk page and do something without Trev being able to complain about it, while Trev will be blocked if he goes out of his way to interact with Mathsci.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that, despite Trev's indefinite block, I still think this restriction needs addressing to prevent a repeat of this sort of situation in the future with Sight or Trev should he get unblocked at some point. Things would have been much simpler if Trev had simply been able to say "hey, this editor won't leave my talk page alone!" No need would have arisen for AE cases, arbitration requests, amendment requests, and so on if Trev had simply been able to complain that an editor was engaging him in a way that bothered him. Common sense and sensitivity have to come into play regarding sanctions.
On another note, in the interests of full disclosure, Trev has sent me another e-mail in which he requested an RFC/U against Mathsci. While that is a course of action I have already considered may eventually be necessary should he continue the sort of conduct evidenced through the duration of this case, I have no intention at this time of pursuing such a measure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like ArbCom collectively is engaging in tons of pointless WP:BURO on this. Why don't you guys indef block Trevelyan? That should be warning enough for anyone repeating that line of behavior. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"no editor may restore any <reverted edit made by a banned editor> which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic." How indirectly you don't say... GovCom gone nuts. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Mathsci
Roger Davies' motion is well-crafted. Now, however, it is addressing a problem which has solved itself. Echigo mole's socking appears to have fizzled out and TrevelyanL85A2 has been blocked indefinitely at WP:AE for violating his topic ban.[235][236][237][238][239]Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2's responses at WP:AE, listed above, clearly crossed a line. As on this page, he showed a blatant disregard for his topic ban. There are no mitigating features at all in his recent editing history. Zilch. His account, with the active encouragement of The Devil's Advocate, regressed to an attack-only account. It would seem that two things could happen if The Devil's Advocate continues his own disruptive activities. Firstly TrevelyanL85A2's talk page access could be removed if he responds to The Devil's Advocate's provacative remarks there. Any response would be a continuation of the conduct for which he was site-banned. Secondly, motion number 3 has already technically passed. If The Devil's Advocate continues commenting as he is doing here and attempts to act further as a proxy-editor for TrevelyanL85A2 on wikipedia, he could find himself subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBR&I. Mathsci (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk notes
This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
I have asked the clerks to delist the motion concerning Wording of Race & Intelligence Review topic-ban remedies, because it is unsuccessful. AGK[•]10:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements. However, I would clarify that while Mathsci has e-mailed the committee regarding this matter, no private statement or evidence has been taken into consideration. Only under certain circumstances do we receive private evidence or hold proceedings in camera. AGK[•]01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to Amendment 2, I will say only that I do not think this issue needs to be re-examined, and at this time I will not be proposing (nor supporting) a motion that grants the request in Amendment 2. AGK[•]23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll recuse, even though I've only ever interacted with these editors and this topic as an uninvolved administrator, my efforts to keep all parties working constructively have been dismal failures of the bitten-hand variety, resulting in the recent attempt to name me as a party the last time this matter showed up here. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci pointed out that I'd recused, which I'd forgotten. Since my recusal was elective in the first place, I appear to have de facto rescinded it by voting on the motion. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who are already banned and topic-banned need to abide by the prior rulings, and editors who are proxying for them or carrying on on their behalf need to stop. While the banning policy contemplates that editors in good standing may, in effect, sponsor and adopt edits made by banned users, I strongly recommend (and we may want to adopt this in a decision) that people not do so with respect to this particular topic, because the behavior that led to some of these bans was egregious and the edits are generally not helpful. Mathsci should stay away from the talkpages of his adversaries (reverting edits from banned users on those pages can safely be left to others), but other than that, I don't see the need for any remedy against him at this time. Finally, the involvement of at least one of the passersby in this dispute has been unhelpful, and I hope those who have acted inconsistently with the preceding suggestions will stop doing so before we have to start calling out names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People continue to defend the practice of accepting and responding to posts from obvious sockpuppets of the banned users in this area, and reverting them back onto their userpages when they are deleted. Whether or not this practice might be acceptable under the banning policy in other contexts, given all the background here it is encouraging the banned users to continue their disruptive and harassing behavior, and therefore is not permissible. The editors who have commented in this discussion are therefore directed to refrain from any further on-wiki communication with the banned users on any page on Wikipedia (including their talkpages), and not to reinstate any comments by the banned users that may be removed by others, regardless of any claimed justification for doing so under any policy or guideline that, in less toxic contexts, might otherwise apply. At the moment, this is simply a friendly but firm suggestion from an individual arbitrator, but I'll be glad to offer a formal motion to this effect, enforceable by significant and increasing blocks, if that is what becomes necessary to put an end to this disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Various questions:
@ Mathsci: I'm not seeing "banning" people from your talk page as being helpful. Why not simply remove the messages after you've read them?
@ The Devil's Advocate: Are you seriously suggesting Mathsci is gaming the system when he reverts the posts of a banned user who has long been harassing him and posting non-public information about him?
@ Trevelyan In the light of WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:USERBIO, why do the named topic-banned editors believe such messages should be retained on their talk pages? (Could a clerk mention to them that I've asked this please and ask for their responses?)
To clarify the core issues, the various guidelines (WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:USERBIO) and essay (WP:DENY) discussed here simply reinforce the relevant policy:
Given the clear policy position, it is a mystery to me why any of the editors who restored the posts could possibly think they were doing the right thing, especially when by restoring they were validating and endorsing the banned editor's posts. As this is about the thirtieth process involving the original topic-banned editors, and their successors, I agree entirely with Brad that robust measures are becoming increasingly appropriate. Roger Daviestalk16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is explicitly authorised by policy to: "interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced". Obviously, that applies to your interpretation of banning policy.
The Banning policy does indeed provide an element of discretion over reversion when it says: "this does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". However, it seems to me that the policy's context is "obviously helpful" article edits rather than clerking of ArbCom matters by a banned user. Furthermore, in this particular instance, it seems to me probable the "helpful messages" were simply a ruse to deliver a covert toxic payload at Mathsci's expense in a seemingly innocuous parcel.
Re: The Suspected Socks sideshow I know that Mathsci has been sorely harassed, and for a protracted period, and that the tags say "suspected sockpuppet" but I would have thought a SPI report/CU check were probably the minima here. Can we completely drop this now? Roger Daviestalk16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: TrevelyanL85A2 He's mentioned here and elsewhere. How, as part of the broader discussion, is he breaching a topic ban? That said, to characterise Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming is really appalling. Roger Daviestalk16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerrillo: Disagree. You claim that "Editors are hereby warned that restoring the reverted edits of site-banned former users is not only strongly discouraged but may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment" re-writes policy. Which policy is being re-written? If the original material outs, or threatens, or harasses, or is a personal attack, or a copyvio, or whatever, by restoring/reinstating it, the restoring/reinstating editor repeats the original misconduct and may face consequences. Equally, if in the process of restoring/reinstating, the editor edit-wars or breaches an interaction ban or a topic ban, or starts a flame war, then that may be in and of itself disruptive. And again equally, if the restored/reinstated material is genuinely innocuous (fixing a typo or whatever) and the restoring/reinstating acts correctly, there are no consequences for the editor restoring/reinstating it. As Cas points out, the key word is "may". Roger Daviestalk04:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, what you have written goes considerably beyond what the banning policy says about reinstating edits of banned users, too much so for such a generically worded motion. If the motion was rewritten in such a way that it clearly was case-specific (and preferably even editor-specific), I'd probably support. Yes, sure, reinstating harassment and outing and threats is inappropriate; however, the policy is clear that anyone reinstating such material is completely responsible for those edits — and therefore is personally responsible for the threats, harassment or outing, and should be treated acccordingly (most likely with a block or ban). But that's not the emphasis of the motion, which is on reinstatement of *any* edits. Turn it around, so that the emphasis is on the threats, harassment, outing etc, noting that there is no difference between an edit originating with a particular user or one that reinstates an edit originating with a different user. The problem is the content being added, regardless of who puts it there. Risker (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker: no, the motion doesn't go further than policy. Editors restoring the reverted edits have to be damn sure that they are not breaching policy and that may not be easy to detect. For instance, it is not unheard of for banned editors to make seemingly innocuous edits simply to prove a point (which is itself disruptive, even if the individual edits are kosher). There's also a world of difference between restoring content and restoring the post lock, stock and barrel, especially when the banned user has used the username as the way of delivering the toxic payload. Roger Daviestalk05:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, I remain unclear why you're unwilling to be case-specific in this motion. I have proposed an alternate on the mailing list to see if folks can live with it before posting it here; not that I'm trying to keep things a big secret, but I find that competing motions only muddy the water further and reduce the chance of reaching consensus. It also gives the opportunity of doing a bit of wordsmithing before people start voting on it. As an aside, we should probably find a way to do this kind of tinkering with wording and sending up trial balloons onwiki, but I've yet to figure out how to do it effectively. Risker (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker: I'm not unwilling at all. My view was that a firmly worded warning would bring people to their senses without actually needing to introduce sanctions. Roger Daviestalk05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Then we differ on that, Roger; I think that sanctions are entirely appropriate in this case, and are probably long overdue. The fact that we've had the case itself and numerous AEs and requests for clarification/amendment makes it clear in my mind. Risker (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motions: Race & Intelligence
Motion: Wording of Race & Intelligence Review topic-ban remedies
Motion failed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
For reference, the two topic-ban remedies in question are worded as follows:
6.1) SightWatcher (talk·contribs) 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.
7.1) TrevelyanL85A2 (talk·contribs) 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.
"participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic"
That sentence is replaced by:
"participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have made significant contributions to the topic".
Support
Proposed. As usual, whether a specific user who falls within the grey area between minor editing and long-term editing is a "significant contributor" will be a decision for the community's administrators (at WP:AE). With context and common sense, those administrators are able to make a sensible decision, and so reduce the gaming of the catch-all wording of these remedies. AGK[•]23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, this removes an opportunity to game the system. Currently, an enforcement action would be taken on request if these two users comment in any thread about any editor who has at any time edited a page about race and intelligence. AGK[•]21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger, Kirill: Greater discretion for AE administrators is a reasonable objective. Handing them carte blanche and the obligation to grant frivolous requests for enforcement in cases where "sanctioned user X posted in ANI thread about user Y when Y made an edit to R&I article Z some two years ago". Bearing in mind the frequency of wikilawyering at AE (of which I'm sure you're aware), Worked in the topic is unduly sweeping. I do not believe you are not improving the ability of AE sysops to act in the way you think you are. AGK[•]15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be helpful, although I don't think it is sufficient to resolve the issue, and anticipate that another motion will also be made. I am not convinced by Jclemens' comment regarding Mathsci. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Not convinced that this is the right direction to go, given Mathsci's gaming of the one-way interaction ban. If we upgraded the existing interaction bans to two-way, I would probably support. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this is helpful. Given the convoluted history of the topic, and the collusion/shenanigans that have gone on for so long in the background, the AE admins need broad discretion to act if they decide sanctions are reasonable and appropriate. Roger Daviestalk08:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the purpose of this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.
Site-banned former users are not welcome on Wikipedia. For all practical purposes, they are prohibited from making any edits to any page on Wikipedia; per longstanding consensus, their edits may be reverted on sight by any editor. Editors are hereby warned that restoring the reverted edits of site-banned former users is not only strongly discouraged but may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment.
Third preference. Would prefer 'editors are advised' to 'editors are hereby warned' or alternatively, naming the editor(s) we are actually warning. In other words, the current motion could be interpreted as warning all editors, which is somewhat inappropriate. However, this is merely a stylistic comment, and otherwise I can support this motion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the editors who have commented on this motion. On reflection, I think "restoring the reverted edits" should be "restoring the reverted talk page edits" as in circumstances where a banned editor notices vandalism or a typo, it is perfectly acceptable to restore the fix after someone has reverted back all of the banned user's edits. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this form. As SilkTork points out below, this would be usurping the community's authority. Right now, any user is free to proxy edit for any banned editor... by accepting total and complete responsibility for that content. This would fundamentally change that content policy by ArbCom fiat: not within our remit. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't support this. I don't even see the decision not to revert a banned user as equivalent to proxying, if the edit is appropriate and improves the project. Indeed, I've seen serious BLP violations and NPOV violations (let alone minor fixes like typos) reinstated into articles because people were reverting banned users, and users who make the same corrections as banned users previously have done have been threatened with blocking because they're "proxying for a banned user". This doesn't even correspond with the policy. Risker (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Banning policy says: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Is the wording of the motion in line with that, or is it taking a firmer approach? SilkTork✔Tea time18:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm having the same issues with this as SilkTork, it is fairly well established that a user CAN reinstate a banned user's edit as long as they are willing to face the music regarding that edit being 100% acceptable. This seems to take away that option. Courcelles19:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the comments, and the opposes, with considerable interest. Which is not to say that I agree with all of them of course. At least this motion has now clarified some of the issues as they are perceived by my fellow arbitrators, which were not previously articulated in the discussions on this page. A motion which reads more as a specific reaction to this amendment rather than a general statement is probably the way forward. The core issue in this amendment is that topic-banned editors have reinstated, for out-of-process reasons, talk page posts made by a serially-socking banned user who is engaged in a longterm campaign of overt (and covert) harassment. Unless I am beaten to it, I shall offer an alternative within the next few days. Roger Daviestalk04:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy generally is that the edits of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor AND that the content of edits made by a banned user may, if appropriate, be reinserted by an editor in good standing who then takes full responsibility for that content. Given the continued disruption in this area from banned editors continuing to edit through sockpuppets and proxy editors, the sanction of all parties currently topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence is extended to cover restoring either the edits or the content of edits made by users banned or topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence. In addition, any topic ban imposed in the future as part of discretionary sanctions will be deemed to include a ban on restoring either the edits or the content of edits made by users banned or topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence.
For the purpose of this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.
I believe this proposal encapsulates what is needed here. The proviso to the banning policy, under which editors may restore edits by banned users if they take full responsibility for their content, has a purpose (about which I have written extensively elsewhere), but it is controversial and can be subject to misuse under the best of circumstances. The proviso is not intended, and should not be misused, as a means of ongoing on-wiki communication with the banned editor (except for legitimate unblock requests), nor where there is evidence that the banned editor is actively continuing his or her pattern of harassing and disruptive conduct that led to the ban. In this instance, it has become clear that one or two of the persistently disruptive editors who have been site-banned for disruptive editing on Race and intelligence, have posted via obvious sockpuppet accounts to the talkpages of editors who have participated in this amendment discussion. These users have then reinstated and responded to these postings by the banned user, after the postings were legitimately removed by another editor. This practice would be questionable under any circumstances and became disruptive under all the circumstances of this case. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to instruct them to stop, which is what this motion does. However, I would favor a broader motion applying this instruction to all the editors who have participated in this clarification discussion, not only those who are topic-banned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was probably unnecessary to make any motions, and we should just have said, as individuals, that administrators are authorized to make such sanctions as they see fit in this topic area — which is really what we mean. Frankly, I doubt there's anyone on this committee who would object to the indefinite topic–banning of any editor, whether or not they have a past history in this area, who reinstates harassing, outing, personal attacks or (for that matter) any other talk page edits by banned users or their socks, or treating those reinstated edits as though they had come from the editor who reinstates them, within this topic area, wherever it is discussed, including user talk pages. This is already within the remit of administrators, but I don't know that we really need motions to do it. I have no particular objection to this version of the motion, which is specific to this case, and I would prefer a broader ruling such as that suggested by Newyorkbrad. But just so that the administrators who have willingly invested the time and energy to work at arbitration enforcement know that the Committee supports their efforts to try to bring some order to difficult areas, I will support this motion. Please do not hesitate to issue sanctions in this matter. Risker (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one a lot better, but hasn't the disputed activity to date largely preceeded SPIs on the relevant sock accounts? "obvious sock is obvious" is a good enough principle to justify blocking the sock... but I worry about it being used to punish other editors for interacting with an account later ascertained to be a sock. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They can argue with the sock, discuss with it, cuss it out. Just not put its edits back if they are specifically reverted as being the edits of a banned editor. That is the extent to this extension of the topic ban (or at least that's what is intended. If that isn't clear enough then please revise text). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. Reverting any edit with the edit summary "sock of a banned user"--as can be done by anyone--does not carry any weight until and unless an SPI actually finds that a violation has taken place. There should be no presumption--to the point of sanctioning editors who revert such edits--that the identification of a sock is correct. That would be "guilty as accused until proven innocent", squared. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, if we're going to extend the topic bans already implemented, I would find it cleaner if we just said "no race and intelligence related edits of any sort, period." A topic banned editor should be blocked for making any restoration of intentionally removed content, so this motion strikes me as meaningless; it would already be a violation. (Is there a typo in this motion or something? Because I'm reading it as "if you're R&I topic banned, you can't revert back in a banned user's edits" which is how things already are.) Courcelles04:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are the editors we are having trouble with already topic banned from race and intelligence? A topic banned editor should not be making any edits, yet your motion denies them a specific kind of edit. If we have editors who are topic banned making such reverts, then we have a deeper problem than this motion will solve. Perhaps you meant this motion to apply to everyone, instead of those who are already prohibited from making any edit sin the topic anyhow? Courcelles18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I look at it, SightWatcher and Trevelyan are "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." I would agree with you that restoring Echigo Mole's edits falls under this - I presumed there was some reason Roger was trying to draft a prohibition on restoring the edits of a banned user, which was why I offered a rewrite. I think this Rump has sat long enough - we appear to have forgotten our original objectives when finding ourselves up to the arse in alligators. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about something much simpler? "Edits made by accounts or IP's blocked as socks of Echigo Mole may not be restored under any circumstances by any editor who was named as a party in the R&I case, the R&I review, or has been previously sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions of that case"? That would require a lot of notifications, (and our CU's to mention EM when they are blocking) but it would solve the problem. Courcelles20:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI route does seem to be cracking a hazelnut with a procedural sledgehammer. The basic issue here is of ferocious complexity, not helped by conflating it with proxying and so forth, which simply made matters much worse. I'm sorry not to have been more responsive earlier, but I've been travelling in Southern Germany and Eastern France all week, and have been experiencing major connection difficulties. I agree with Brad that the restriction probably needs to be extended to all editors who have participated in R&I things though that is likely to meet resistance and further wiki-lawyering. Roger Daviestalk22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motion (on restoring reverted edits 3)
Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.
Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given for prior activity and should be logged appropriately.
For the purpose of this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.
Support
I think this ties up all the loose ends and is probably a more straighforward/less wikilawyerable way of dealing with this. It provides a red flag to those seeking to revert; and a green flag to administrators. I think it answers Courcelles' and Newyorkbrad's concerns too. If adopted, it needs to go on the R&I case page, probably with a heading "Amendment remedies". Roger Daviestalk07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to see this copyedited to indicate that "banned" in this motion means both site and topic banned editors, if that is indeed what Roger means. Courcelles23:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't support it, as it doesn't specify any method or process for ascertaining that edits are, in fact, those of a banned editor: If it's requiring a closed SPI, it's cumbersome, and if it's assuming guilt, it's eliminating due process and appropriate notifications--of the two, the latter is the more concerning issue to me, since editors should not be sanctioned absent appropriate warning. Still, it does look better than either of the previous two. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This should obviously be a new sanction log, requiring at a minimum a new warning under discretionary sanctions before someone gets blocked. (though in the future that could be built into the standard RI warning, people already warned will need to be warned again under this motion) Courcelles13:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible. I think the particular editors in question in this specific case have received more than adequate warnings, but I just don't want to see the next editor who comes along and reverts an aggressive rollback of a talk page edit by an IP address blocked on the presumption that it's an inappropriate edit. Without being tooWP:BEANSy about it, I could see how an unrelated user could troll one particular user who's known for his aggressive reversion of edits he presumes are from banned editors--e.g., by imitating the content and style preferred by that banned editor--then make an innocuous edit to another user's talk page, and get the two editors into an edit war on the second user's talk page. While it may seem like I'm being overly pedantic here, it's very important to not set up sanctions that can be gamed by other editors who are up to no good. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the May 2012 modification to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, Mathsci was admonished for BATTLEFIELD conduct. The conduct has continued and has caused unnecessary disruption. Unfortunately, Mathsci's conduct has been enabled by the actions of a few administrators.
Evidence in the case was presented that Mathsci had been wikihounded by a now banned editor. Since the case closed, administrators, notably Future Perfect at Sunrise, have done a good job at reverting edits made by the banned editor and blocking the IPs used for the edits. Nevertheless, Mathsci has repeatedly reinserted himself into the conflict with the banned editor, including reverting comments on editor's talk pages, then requesting administrator intervention when editors disagree with his actions. In the AN thread linked above, he complained about an administrator (Nyttend) who objected to his conduct. Although Mathsci has stated he will no longer edit the Race and Intelligence articles, he still takes an active role in policing them and pursuing involved editors with which he does not agree. In the AE requests linked to above, evidence was presented that he has wikihounded The Devil's Advocate. Collect was formally warned when he had done nothing more than criticize Mathsci's actions, and the warning was logged in the case sanctions section.
The most recent AE request was closed yesterday. Mathsci opened the request after interjecting himself in an unrelated AE request in which The Devil's Advocate was involved. Evidence was then presented in that request that Mathsci was mischaracterizing editor's actions and using their disagreement with his interpretation of an ArbCom action in order to push for their sanction. During the request, Mathsci selectively reverted a suspected banned edit from my user talk page. When I complained, he again used the tactic of saying that I was violating an ArbCom mandate and pushed for my sanction (a debate between I and Mathsci in my evidence section was hatted by Future Perfect at Sunrise). Once I realized that he was using a baiting/bear poking tactic with me that he had used before, as the above threads illustrate, I provided evidence of it (all the links/diffs are in that evidence). The evidence includes a link to an AE action that Mathsci attempted to initiate against me for disagreeing with him, which Future Perfect at Sunrise speedily closed. Five minutes later, Wee Curry Monster hatted my evidence section, then, about an hour later, Timotheus Canens imposed one-way interaction bans on me, The Devil's Advocate, and Zeromus1 and closed the request without allowing time for the other admins who had commented to comment on the new evidence. In a similar example, one of the AE requests linked above, MastCell decided to block an editor before that editor had even responded to the AE request. As far as I know, I have never edited the Race and Intelligence topic area.
Mathsci states repeatedly that the stress from the Race and Intelligence topic area has caused him heart trouble and other kinds of hardship. Yet, he repeatedly involves himself in pushing for administrative action against involved editors, actions against banned editors, and aggressively pursuing administrative action against editors who have concerns with his behavior. If he really does have a heart problem, I believe some intervention may be necessary before he harms himself, which is of course more serious than the disruption he is causing with his continued, BATTLEFIELD conduct. For example, since the imposing of the interaction ban yesterday, when The Devil's Advocate asked the sanctioning administrator for clarification on the admin's talk page Mathsci responded with a confrontational comment. Mathsci responded to this case request by filing another AE request.
If the case is accepted, I believe the evidence will show that:
Mathsci is treating the issue with the banned user as an ongoing battle that he must win through his own, constant, personal intervention
Mathsci wikihounds, hectors, baits, and pokes editors who disagree with or criticize his actions
Two or three admins have been effectively rubber-stamping his AE requests, (such as MastCell approving that block before the target even had a chance to defend himself) and intimidating or unfairly sanctioning editors who get in the way, such as the formal warning to Collect, almost blocking The Devil's Advocate based on shaky evidence, then imposing one-way interaction bans instead of mutual interaction bans
I'm kind of confused as to how someone could counsel one of the parties here for being too aggressive, yet at the same time say that only a one-way ban is better. If one checks the AN and AE links above in the "prior dispute resolution" attempts section, plus some supporting statements by others here on this page, I think one will note that one of the parties here is extremely agressive and confrontational in pursuit of editors with whom he disagrees. AE admins, please compare the measured, calm responses from The Devil's Advocate, Zeromus, and SightWatcher on this page with the behavior of the other party. I believe one of the reasons that Treveylan was banned was because he violated his one-way interaction ban to warn TDA of the wikihounding he should expect from having disagreed with Mathsci somewhere, a warning which appears to have come true. Cla68 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken, what do you consider to be an "innocent and productive" editor? Are you aware that the primary editor of today's featured article currently running on the main page was yours truly? Sorry, I just couldn't let that one pass. I've put a lot of hours and effort into Wikipedia, and the reason I got involved in this situation is because I thought something was wrong. I'm trying to help Wikipedia to work better. I guess we all pick sides, but I think we should, and that includes me, be a little more real about it. Cla68 (talk) 11:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to Arbitrators
SirFozzie, as far as I know, I haven't filed any other ArbCom requests or AE actions against Mathsci. If I have, someone please point it out to me. I believe most, if not almost all, of the AN and AE requests linked to above were initiated by Mathsci. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand what you mean. The problem is, in the most recent AE request, Mathsci had almost convinced the participating admins into blocking The Devil's Advocate (TDA), even though the evidence Mathsci presented had serious problems when examined in any great detail. Somebody has to speak up when someone is about to be unfairly trampled. And yes, I do believe the evidence shows that that was the case (see TDA's statement below, which I think is fairly clear). Is it always fair or accurate to label the people who speak up as holding grudges? Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, I agree with you. If interaction bans are going to be used as a reactive remedy for AE requests, then, as this diff shows, they should be mutual, not one way. Cla68 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Committee, based on this, do you think it might be a good idea to ask Mathcsi to stay away from Spar-Stangled at least until the SPI is concluded? I think labeling someone's user page as a banned editor's sock when an SPI has so far been inconclusive lends support to two of the allegations I made above about Mathsci's behavior. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles, as several of you have noticed, Mathsci appears to be somehwat obsessed with the ongoing battle between him and this banned editor. I believe that one-way interaction bans are enabling this behavior, because it appears to be granting Mathsci license to seek sanctions against anyone he perceives of getting in his way in this ongoing game of wits he and the other editor are involved in. Make the bans two-way, and I believe Mathsci will be more inclined to stay out of the way and allow Wikipedia's interested administrators to take care of the issues for him, which they appear, based on their comments on this page, more than willing and able to do. Besides, as the diff I presented above of Mathsci confronting, perhaps even taunting TDA, shows, Mathsci has already shown a willingness to game the one-way ban. Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK's and Casliber's rationales in their oppose votes to the motion appear to indicate that they think that not enough evidence was presented to support changing the nature of the ibans. I'm confused, as I thought that we weren't supposed to post a complete presentation of evidence here on the request page. If any of you is going to oppose the motion based on a lack of evidence, then you need to give us time and space to make a complete presentation. If I didn't think the full evidence supported my position, I wouldn't have made this request in the first place. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, yes, if I didn't think I had a case, I wouldn't have made this request. I don't know why a few admins have elected to facilitate this feud between Mathsci and this banned user by continually taking Mathsci's side and insisting on one-way sanctions against anyone who gets in his way. I firmly believe a full case is warranted. Notice that J. Clemens recused because he said he has evidence to present? Cla68 (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted, I have essentially zero connection to the R&I controversy, and found the "warning" issued to me to be incomprehensible. I would leave it to individual editors to try explaining precisely why it was made at the time, though I suspect Cla68 may, indeed, be correct in his assessment thereof. If any motions are made, I would appreciate one removing my name from the "sanctions" page at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TC misstates the actual facts behind the "warning" since my posts regarding a case were on point, and actually further demonstrate litigiousness on the part of Mathsci, and had absolutely no connection whatsoever with R&I at all -- in fact the use of such a "warning" is against Wikipedia policy that some actual rationale be given other than "he attacked a person who was routinely attacking others." In any event - the presence of my name on the R&I board is not only risible, it is a sign that the complaint here about that editor is proper and well-founded, alas. BTW, thet TC finds that having one's name mentioned in a case is a "transparently weak justification" for giving a comment is also risible utterly. That sort of claim would mean that one could say anything about anyone at all and charge then with a "transparently weak justification" when they dare to give a comment. I find such a claim to be contrary to the five pillars of Wikipedia ab initio - the aim is to edit in a collaborative and collegial manner, not to charge then with "transparently weak justification" for daring to post where their name has already been brought up. Cheers.
Statement by Wee Curry Monster
I have no idea why I have been named as a party, my only role in the matter was to hat a thread with a suggestion that Cla68 drop the stick. He had been warned about his comments and as a neutral 3rd party who unfortunately happened by, it seemed obvious to this bystander he seemed to have a fixation on Mathsci, for what seemed a bizarre reason to me (ie that Mathsci following policy was somehow involved in a vendetta against a banned user). My only motivation in doing so was to try and stop an editor who I previously thought of as a good content creator, self-destructing and being sanctioned. Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered, I would urge arbcom not to take this on as a waste of everyone's time. Cla68 received more than fair warning where his conduct was headed and I am unsurprised it ended as it did. A good close in my book, lets not waste any more editing time on this drama fest. Remember the encyclopedia we're supposed to be building people? Wee Curry Monstertalk00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum
An addendum resulting from a conversation with Cla68 yesterday evening. See [240], where I invited anyone who thought my intervention inappropirate, including Cla68, to simply revert me. I believe I made it plain why I hatted the conversation, that I considered Cla68 had clearly lost perspective and appeared to have a fixation on Mathsci. From a personal perspective, it saddens me to see an editor who I considered in good standing at WP:MILHIST for his work on WWII self-destructing like this. Please could someone hit him with a clue stick and shut down this drama fest quickly. Wee Curry Monstertalk09:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Nyttend
Ditto the first half of WCM's first sentence; I'm quite confused. I've never even read a summary of the original race and intelligence case; I assume that it's something about an alleged correlation between people of some races being more or less intelligent than people of other races, and if that be the issue, I've never edited anything close to that. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Fut.Perf.
Why, oh why can't people just shut the f... up?
This filing is a breach of the ban just imposed, and I hope that arbitrators will have the sense to decline it speedily. There is a difference between an appeal (which of course Cla is entitled to file, on AE or here), and this kind of request for a full case. An appeal would be narrowly restricted in scope to discussing the justification of this particular sanction, and would involve only Cla and the administrator(s) who imposed it. But what he's asking for instead is a whole big case with everybody involved, with the scope of discussing not Cla's sanction, but Mathsci and everybody else. Mathsci and everybody else hacking on each other again and again is precisely what these sanctions were meant to stop, so no, "Cla must not discuss Mathsci" means precisely what it says, and it does include Arbcom pages.
For the same reason, I hope Arbcom members will leave no doubt about it that this request is also not a free pass for the other sanctioned editors to misuse it for resuming their behaviour here. Please close this down quickly. Every day this whole ugliness is allowed to keep boiling is a day too much. Fut.Perf.☼05:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: At this time, I strongly oppose the idea brought up by some arbs, of making the interaction ban two-way, for two reasons:
It unduly and unnecessary interferes with the discretion of administrators at AE. If the committee trusts us with administrating discretionary sanctions, it should not arbitrarily override admins' decisions without good reason. Good reason, in this case, would be concrete evidence – and not just somebody's guesswork – that the one-way interaction ban is unworkable. That would be the case if Mathsci were seen unduly taking advantage of the situation, e.g. by initiating unwanted contact with the other parties, hounding them, etc. Such evidence does not exist, because since the AE decision Mathsci evidently has not engaged in any contacts with Cla68 or any of the others beyond this process, which was initiated by Cla68, not by him. For now, let's see how Mathsci behaves when left alone. If and when he becomes a problem, that can be swiftly dealt with.
Such an add-on sanction would effectively reward Cla68's misuse of the Arbcom process in filing this case. What we have here is a pattern that I'm sure we've all seen in other cases before, and it needs to be stopped: (1) Editor A is engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conflict with editor B. (2) Editor A gets an interaction ban against B. (3) Instead of disengaging from B as intended, A files an Arbcom case against him. (4) As a result, A now gets a free ticket out of jail: the Arbcom process offers him a privileged forum where he can continue exactly what he was asked to stop – pursuing his conflict with B –, at least for the week or so until case acceptance/dismissal, if not for the whole duration of a case; moreover, he gains immunity from administrative enforcement because the admins who imposed the sanctions will now be listed as "parties" to an Arbcom case (and other previously uninvolved admins will be unwilling to do anything for fear of interfering with Arbcom). Finally, while A runs only a small risk of ending up with a heavier sanction than the one he already has, with only a bit of luck he may end up with the satisfaction of having his opponent sanctioned too.
The only reasonable course of action against this pattern is for Arbcom to make it a rule that such case filings in breach of an existing interaction ban be thrown out summarily and speedily. Of course people must have a right of appeal, but an appeal is something different from what happened here. An interaction ban does not mean: please shift your conflict with editor B to another, more formal venue, such as Arbcom. What an interaction ban means is: you have no business pursuing conflicts with B at all, anywhere. "Disengage" means just that: disengage. (Or, more directly: "shut up" means just that, "shut up".) Arbs, please restore some sanity here. Fut.Perf.☼11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update re. the new motion: as stated before, and echoing in part what TC and Heim are saying, I continue to be opposed to this, and in fact enraged by it. You are not only unnecessarily and unjustly messing with the AE sanctions (that's not really the point, and note that these aren't "my" sanctions); you are in fact systematically counteracting and sabotaging them, through the very process we are seeing here. The AE sanctions were put in place in order to grant Mathsci – a harassment victim who has obviously been at the end of his tether – some much-needed respite. Instead of allowing this to take effect as intended, i.e. for him to be finally left alone, you have turned it into its very opposite. You, through your decision to allow this farce of of case request to continue, have been dragging Mathsci (and everybody else) through another weeks-long hell of stress, bitterness and accusations. You could have dismissed this thing within 48 hours; instead, through your own laziness, you allowed it to drag on for 12 fucking days, and now, after 12 days, you are adding yet another level of stress on top, with no end in sight. At this point, the fact that Mathsci, during these 12 days, let his stress level show and acted less than optimally, by continuing to engage in lengthy and unnecessary discussion, seems to provide much of the alleged motivation for claiming that this added sanction is necessary. Arbs, you are sanctioning somebody for disruption that you yourselves have caused. This whole mess is your fault. Adding the disgrace of an unnecessary personal sanction on top of all this aggravation is only the cherry on top of the cake. What you are doing here is deeply unethical. Fuck you, Arbcom.
That said, one practical thing: Does "not interacting" with the other parties include that Mathsci will also be prohibited from doing what originally triggered this whole thing, remove postings of banned socks from other people's talk pages? Because if yes, you are not only negating the effect of your very own previous decisions, you are also granting the banned user some wonderful free space for continuing his harassment socking, in total immunity. Don't tell me that is what you intend. Fut.Perf.☼16:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ErrantX: Yes, of course it would be desirable if Mathsci could also finally be relaxed enough to step away from things. But imposing that upon him as a sanction (i.e. a "punishment", because whether you call it that or not, that's what these sanctions are) is the worst possible way of achieving that. Fut.Perf.☼17:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Silk Tork: what, you are "taking your time to think things over"? No, you're not. You are not taking your time; you are wasting ours. This mess has been on for fifteen. bloody. days. If that's not enough for you to make up your mind on a matter like this, the honorable thing to do is to resign from the committee.
Arbs, get this mess over with, now. If this thing is still not completed within the next 24 hours, I don't know why I shouldn't start asking for handing out blocks. Not against any participants in this case, but against, you, arbs. For disruptive editing. Fut.Perf.☼17:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by The Devil's Advocate
For a variety of reasons I don't really want to participate here, it gives me a headache just thinking about having to deal with even more of this drama, but I think we should all understand how this recent situation went down. After weeks of me having no contact with Mathsci, not even so much as speaking his name as I recall, he suddenly decided to accuse me of tag-teaming and meatpuppetry without a shred of evidence at an AE case where I was not involved, an AE case that concerned an article I have not even edited. I responded to ask him not to make such serious claims without evidence and he reacts to that civil request by bringing up all the garbage from the request for amendment that ended weeks before his comment and making a bunch of other bizarre accusations. At one point he accuses me of putting forward a "grotesque conspiracy theory" that he was lying about his heart condition as part of some "morbid game" on my part, despite me plainly acknowledging his health problems in the comment directly preceding that one. In fact, what I stated was that he keeps pursuing me at multiple noticeboards and I did not in any way try to cast doubt on the seriousness of his health issues.
After his attempt to hijack that case didn't pan out, Mathsci initiated an AE case against me and Zeromus claiming it was enforcing the new remedy on restoring edits from banned editors, even though neither of us had done such a thing. One of the two diffs concerning me was me clarifying on Zeromus' talk page that the new restriction does not prohibit interactions with any editors, including Trev, after Mathsci claimed it did. Mathsci claimed this was me encouraging people to talk to Trev. The other diff he cited was a comment from several weeks ago at the request for amendment where I stated that Trev had requested via e-mail that I file an RfC/U against Mathsci, but that before Trev even made this suggestion I had already considered such action may prove necessary at some point should Mathsci's conduct continue unabated. Mathsci claimed that diff showed me threatening to file an RfC/U on Trev's behalf. Neither of these explanations were accurate descriptions of my comments. Beyond that, Mathsci left additional comments making all sorts of accusations about harassment and proxy-editing that he made no effort to substantiate with actual evidence.
This was just forum-shopping after Mathsci's numerous attempts to get me sanctioned during the request for amendment didn't pan out, plain and simple. In the AE case I provided the very same diff above demonstrating that Mathsci was the one who started this recent mess by trying to hijack another AE case to go after me on completely frivolous claims of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry. For any admin to take Mathsci's vexatious, evidence-starved request for enforcement seriously was a major lapse in judgment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's clear things up a bit here. The only reason I mentioned Trev's request for an RfC/U was to be clear that if I should pursue such a measure in the future it would be because I felt it was necessary because of the conduct I had witnessed and not because anyone else requested it. I told Zeromus that the recently-passed restriction did not prohibit interactions with banned editors or Trev because other editors were seemingly trying to mislead Zeromus into thinking that interacting with Trev or banned editors was a violation of the restriction and thus could lead to sanctions. That is essentially the whole basis for the indefinite one-way interaction ban.
While I don't expect or want an arbitration case on this matter, would the Arbs consider putting forward a motion on this interaction ban, either to lift it or make it mutual? Honestly, I think any sort of interaction ban was pointless as I am more than happy to ignore Mathsci as I did in the weeks preceding this latest flare-up and in the numerous instances before that where he showed up at unrelated noticeboards to go after me. Hell, I ignored the vast majority of his comments about me on the request for amendment as well. Still, if Mathsci was just prevented from interacting with me as well I would be willing to accept the sanction, though I would prefer if it had a time limit rather than being indefinite.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future and Tim are exhibiting questionable judgment in their defense of the one-way nature of the interaction ban. The claim that they supported allowing Mathsci to interact with us when we could not reciprocate because they wanted "to see how he behaves if and when he is finally left alone" seems to be completely ignoring my statements and evidence at the AE case where I plainly said that I had ignored Mathsci for weeks until he tried to hijack an AE case to go after me with spurious accusations (see evidence above). In particular, Future had previously suggested that Mathsci had followed me to unrelated articles in an inappropriate manner so his comments are even more questionable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elen, I think we can safely say that the star-spangled account is somebody's sock, most likely Echigo mole, and without question the comment below is just disruptive trolling on an arbitration page. The last thing alone is enough to justify removing the comment and blocking the account if you aren't yet satisfied that this is Echigo mole. Knowing who the account belongs to is more of a formality at this point and doesn't justify keeping such absurd accusations on an arbitration page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future and Tim aren't relenting on their position in spite of the evidence I provided above that directly contradicts their alleged basis for supporting the restriction and in spite of my subsequent response to them noting that evidence. Would they please explain why they apparently think the evidence above doesn't point to a likelihood that Mathsci will abuse a one-way restriction? I mean, the whole reason Mathsci is going after me is because I provided evidence and argumentation that he had abused another one-way restriction with Trev in order to get that editor indeffed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK If your suggestion to not amend the one-way interaction ban at this time is referring to Mathsci's professed intention to stop contributing then I find that acceptable, but if he should return to editing I would very much not want a situation where Mathsci is free to confront and provoke me as he sees fit, while I am unable to report him for it. The admins at AE should have been more than familiar with the evidence that Mathsci was initiating incidents with me as evidence was presented right at the outset of the AE case and another was familiar with a previous such incident. Please make it mutual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci plainly stated in this very discussion that he had talked to Calisber about exercising his right to vanish and made numerous other comments suggesting that he was going to stop contributing altogether. I fail to see how I have misrepresented anything.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on the RFAR talk page a few hours ago in response to Future's claims about this case not being used to address the sanction in question to clarify that I had been doing just that and asking him to address what I have said in this case. Mathsci commented just two hours later above my comment in a way that made it look like I was responding to him so I moved my comment up so it would be clear that was not the case. Unfortunately, the diff makes it look like I moved Mathsci's comment instead, but I moved my comment up to avoid the appearance that I was responding to Mathsci.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NW, you are a named party to the case and were specifically involved in the AE case that led to the one-way interaction bans that are being disputed. I see nothing in the statement by Zeromus that is fundamentally different in nature from what Cla68 was saying and the Arbs plainly stated that Cla68's comments were appropriate. Seems to me that it is wildly inappropriate and completely inconsistent with WP:ADMINACCT for a WP:INVOLVED admin such as yourself to be collapsing relevant statements and evidence in a de-facto ArbCom appeal of an AE case where you were pushing for sanctions at the duplicitous request of an opposing party. Please undo your action and formally recuse yourself from your clerking duties with regards to the case. Let uninvolved Arbs or clerks handle these types of dubious complaints.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The comment Mathsci was complaining about directly mentioned his conduct towards me as a basis for changing the one-way interaction bans to mutual interaction bans. It did not actually involve any personal attacks as the claims about Mathsci's conduct towards me were backed up by diffs and everything else was quite civil. Mathsci was making a spurious claim of personal attacks to get a WP:INVOLVED admin to redact evidence of Mathsci's misconduct towards me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fozzie, shouldn't the wording be essentially the same as that used by Tim? That way there would be no confusion about whether the same terms apply to Mathsci's interactions with us that apply to our interactions with him.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, the case you cited does not seem that compelling. In that case, the other party was still "urged to continue to avoid any unnecessary interaction" with the sanctioned party and that apparently means the other party had already been avoiding interactions with the sanctioned party. So, that does not appear to support the argument for a one-way interaction ban in this case as it was de-facto mutual even if one of the parties was not formally sanctioned. Even worse in this case is the fact that Mathsci is actually the one who initiated this whole recent debacle after weeks of no interaction between me and him. How anyone can look at that diff understanding that this was after weeks of no interaction and conclude that Mathsci is the only one who didn't need to be subject to an interaction ban is absolutely mind-boggling.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the discussion going on at Zeromus1's talk page, it does not appear that the alleged Ferahgo connection is settled at this point with aprock stating that the writing styles suggest different people. Judging by AGK's initial comment, I suspect the CU evidence only pointed to Zeromus being in the same state as Ferahgo or a nearby state. If that is the case then the behavioral evidence is the crux of the argument and it is not very strong. Editors should reserve judgment as it is possible at this point that it was a mistake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should note exactly how my dispute with Mathsci began. Basically, after I noticed a notification given to Jclemens regarding an arbitration request I saw the request Trev filed regarding the actions in his userspace and the AE case Mathsci filed against him for filing that request. On bothpages I left my comments regarding the matter. Essentially, I suggested that the sanction against Trev was an inappropriate one-way interaction restriction (it did not prohibit interaction in general, but simply complaints about conduct) and suggested that Mathsci was abusing the one-way nature of the restriction in order to get Trev sanctioned. The way Mathsci immediately responded pretty much says all anyone needs to know: [241][242].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Zeromus1
User blocked through checkuser as sock of banned User:Ferahgo the Assassin
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know I'm expected to provide a statement here, but I won't be able to if I'm not allowed to comment on the case's other parties. I assume interaction bans have an exception for commenting on arbitration requests in which I'm a party, especially as The Devil's Advocate already has done so.
I think that Arbcom should accept this case, but it should be called something other than Race and Intelligence II. A lot of the editors involved, such as Nyttend and Collect, appear to have not edited articles in the R&I topic area. The focus of Cla68's complaint is Mathsci's apparent battleground attitude, and the way admins seem to enable it by sanctioning any editor who Mathsci reports without carefully examining the situation. If this is the case, then it can't be resolved at AE, because the way AE requests are handled is part of the problem. But the problem also applies to more topic areas than R&I, so if Arbcom accepts the case its name should reflect that.
In this amendment request made by The Devil's Advocate, nine editors commented that this was something which Arbcom should address, most of them editors who have not participated in R&I articles as far as I know. But Arbcom chose to not address it, and instead addressed the (mostly) separate issue of Echigo Mole's socking. In that amendment request, some people also commented that if Arbcom did not address the concerns of the community, this conflict would likely continue to expand and come back to Arbcom again and again. That appears to be what's happening now. Considering the multiple arbitration requests there have been about this conflict already, I think Arbcom should carefully consider, can the community really be expected to resolve it without arbitration? And if so, where? (Certainly not at AE.) Up to this point, the effect of Arbcom's reluctance to take on this conflict seems to be that there's a new arbitration request about it from a new group of editors every few months, and I see no reason to assume that would be different in the future. Zeromus1 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little troubled by Mathsci's comment here, "I will not respond now except privately through you or other AE administrators." This comment appears to be saying he can get AE admins to post what he wants in this thread by contacting them privately. Isn't part of the point of AE that admins there are supposed to be impartial judges of the situation? The fact that some admins are willing to post what he tells them to seems to imply they aren't truly impartial, which might explain what Cla68 has complained about that they effectively rubber-stamped his AE report about us. Zeromus1 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, how am I "twisting your words"? What does it mean for you to say you are "responding privately through AE administrators", except that you privately tell them what to post here? Zeromus1 (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recently took a look at the past amendment requests listed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence, and apparently this conflict has been ongoing for almost two years. The behavior in question and one of the parties never changes, although the group of editors that he's in conflict with has changed a few times. This issue was brought before ArbCom in November 2010: [243] February 2011: [244] August 2011: [245] September 2011: [246], and July 2012. [247] That doesn't count the review that happened this spring, which would be a sixth time, and also doesn't include the dozen or more AE threads. The issue that's before ArbCom now has come before them an average of once every four months for the past two years. I think it's apparent that if the committee decides to take no action, this cycle will continue indefinitely, either involving the current group of editors or a different group. I think the committee should carefully consider whether allowing that to happen really is what they want. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, you point out here that most of the editors you've been in conflicts with have eventually quit the project or been blocked, and I can see what you're saying is right. But what I'm saying is that these conflicts always seem to go the same way. First you choose an editor you don't like and follow them to various unrelated parts of the project. In the case of the Devil's Advocate, you followed him to unrelated threads at WQA [248] BLPN [249] AE [250] and brought him and me up in an AE thread that had nothing to do with us or you. [251] After a while, whoever you're doing this to starts to react, and then they get sanctioned or blocked by AE or ArbCom. That's what happened to me, The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, and TrevelyanL85A2. (Here is where TrevelyanL85A2 explained how this happened in his own case.) A lot of the time admins seem to think the easiest way to resolve the conflict is by sanctioning whatever current editor your conflict is with, and maybe ArbCom thinks that also. But what can be seen with a big-picture perspective is that this does nothing to prevent the same cycle repeating with whatever editor you choose next. If it were enough to always sanction the other party, and just give you warnings and admonishments, the same cycle wouldn't have repeated with at least eight different editors over the past two years. Zeromus1 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've challenged me to provide diffs of this in regard to the other editors you brought up. I'll present some evidence about it if ArbCom accepts this as a case, but I'm not sure if this is the right time or place to present it. Zeromus1 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by TC
I broadly agree with Fut. Perf., and do not have much to add to his comment. I'll just add a few points:
Collect was warned because he hijacked an AE appeal by TrevelyanL85A2 with unrelated complaints on Mathsci with a transparently weak justification (that his name was mentioned in passing in the appeal). He was free to start a new complaint on Mathsci, but not derail an existing one.
As to the sanction on Cla68, AE surely has the inherent power to sanction editors for disruption on its own case pages. Cla68 was already warned by Fut.Perf. to disengage; when he refused to heed that warning, resorting to sanctions is necessary to control the disruption on the AE process.
As to the one-way nature of the interaction bans, I'll just quote Fut. Perf.'s comment on his talk page, which is exactly my intent:
Well, I'd say to test that we first need to see how he behaves if and when he is finally left alone. If he misuses that then, we can still add something to the sanctions. Fut.Perf.☼ 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, @Penwhale: If you are expressing an opinion on the merits of the case ("which is odd", "one-sided IBAN never seems to work"), I don't think it's appropriate for you to continue acting in a clerk capacity. T. Canens (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Fut.Perf.'s additional comment, especially his first point. If arbcom is going to modify AE sanctions based on nothing more than a hunch that the particular sanction employed may not work, then the word "discretion" becomes meaningless. I, for one, would certainly reconsider my participation at AE if the committee is going to micromanage every sanction applied by motion. Why spend time reading and evaluating AE requests when arbcom will just substitute their judgment for yours instead? T. Canens (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@NE: I don't mind being overturned. What I do mind is being overturned on a flimsy rationale that "two-way ban is more likely to be successful". In handing out the one-way bans, I decided that there's a good chance that one-way bans would be sufficient to address the issue. No arb has yet bothered to explain exactly why in this case a one-way ban is so unlikely to be successful as to be outside my discretion, or why the fact that I'm planning to keep an eye on it and make it two-way if necessary is not enough to address any potential for gaming from the one-way ban. All I see are generalized statements about how one-way bans are easily gamed (without any explanation how Mathsci is likely to game it) and are less likely to be successful than two-way bans. Well, arsenic trioxide is a deadly poison, but is also be used to treat certain diseases. If this committee is going to modify AE actions based on essentially nothing more than a collective hunch, then it can enforce its own decisions. T. Canens (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This will be, I think, my last comment on this request. It's long, but I think that is necessary to fully explain my position in this case since some people, including a couple of arbitrators I greatly respect, seem to have misunderstood the reasons for my disagreement. I'll first explain more on why I opted for a one-way ban originally. Then I'll explain why I object so strongly to the committee making the ban two-way, which actually do not have a lot to do with my views on whether a one-way or a two-way ban is more preferable. I agree that reasonable admins can and do disagree over that question; I would have objected equally strongly had another admin imposed a two-way ban and the committee considered a motion to make it one-way, even though I prefer a one-way ban myself.
First, on one-way bans versus two-way bans. I know, of course, that one-way interaction bans are prone to gaming. Most of the interaction bans I have issued are two-way bans precisely for this reason. But most of those bans also involve editors in contentious topic areas such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. and they would have been especially prone to gaming if they were one-way. The situation between Mathsci and the other three are, in my view, rather different. A good part of it has relative little to do with the sort of entrenched real-world disputes that characterizes ARBPIA or ARBAA2 or ARBEE cases, but rather has a significant personal character.
It should be clear from the interaction ban how I assessed the relative blame among the parties to the interaction ban. I gather from the comments below that many arbitrators also agree with this view. Given that assessment, I concluded that the equitable solution would be a one-way interaction ban. I then considered the likelihood of gaming. I looked at Mathsci's history, and see no significant likelihood that he would game it, especially since he surely knows that first, the editors on the other side of the interaction ban would not hesitate to bring any case of gaming to our attention, and second, we would have little patience should he attempt to game the ban. I concluded that it is preferable to try out the less restrictive and more equitable solution first, because I believe that there's a good chance it will work given the particular circumstances of this case; if that did not work out, a two-way ban can easily be applied.
I should emphasize that the specifics of this case are crucial to my decision. The chance that a sanction will be gamed depends not only on how easily it can be gamed, but equally on how likely the particular user at issue will attempt to game a sanction. This is why I'm particularly disappointed that no arbitrator has pointed to any evidence that Mathsci has gamed, or is likely to game, the one-way ban beyond the ban's general "gameability".
Second, on the reasons for my strong objection to the proposed motion. Brad and AGK, I'm not taking the motion as a reflection on me personally - I've been active at AE for quite some time now, some of my sanctions had been modified by the committee or on appeal at AE before, and if I were to take it personally I'd be out of this AE business a long time before now. This is the first case - in fact, I believe the first time in my Wikipedia career - that I felt the need to write something even remotely resembling what I wrote here. It is not something I would do lightly.
When AE admins signed up for this thankless task that involves dealing with conflicts in the worst areas of this project, we are promised that we'd be allowed to use our discretion to solve the problems we face. Of course, AE admins are "not free, like a loose cannon, to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever [we] announce that [we are] acting in [our AE] capacity" (Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 367 (Stewart, J., dissenting)). However, if we take our time to read the AE request, look up the diffs, evaluate the conduct of the parties, and come up with a decision that in our view will solve the problem, we are promised, it will not be disturbed lightly. Previous arbcoms took great pains to emphasize this point, twice passing motions that accorded special protections to AE actions. Admins who overturn AE actions without a clear-cut consensus can - and indeed have been - desysopped. When a sanction is appealed at AE, we always accorded significant deference to the judgment of the original AE admin, and we have upheld sanctions even when some of us - in some cases, even when most of us - thought that their solution is better than the solution chosen by the original admin. We understand that different admins may come up with different solutions to the same problem, we know that reasonable admins can differ in their evaluation of the different solutions, and we allow our fellow admin, who took the time to carefully examine the original case, to try their solution first.
That brings me to the reason why I vehemently disagree with the proposed motion: I strongly believe that it is an utterly unnecessary and completely unwarranted interference with the discretion of AE administrators - the discretion that, as I explained above, is crucial to making AE functional, effective, and worthwhile to the admins who spend considerable time evaluating requests. No arbitrator has yet explained why a one-way ban that will be swiftly made two-way should gaming occur is so inferior an option compared to a two-way ban that it required the intervention of the committee. For it to substitute its judgment for ours, simply because the solution we picked might not work, devalues the work of AE admins and will only encourage meritless appeals. These appeals not only consume the time of AE admins who had to respond and defend their decision, but also take days or even weeks to resolve. As a recent case on point, it took the committee a ridiculous 13 days to reject an second appeal of a discretionary sanction when the first appeal was declined a mere 4 days before the second appeal was filed. This committee pays lip service to supporting AE admins, but its actual actions and inactions in fact substantially limit the discretion necessary for AE to properly function, and greatly undermine the effectiveness of AE admins. As much as I hate to say this, if this is how this committee "supports" the administrators enforcing its decisions, then it can enforce its own decisions as far as I am concerned. T. Canens (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68, so if I understand it correctly, your involvement in the topic area as far as editing articles is concerned, is minimal; the dispute is primarily about dealing with banned editors like when they post on user talk pages as happened in the recent incident? Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This can also be handled using a sort of general sanctions system
The problem is caused by having to deal with socks. One can then impose restrictions on all editors on how they are allowed to deal with suspected socks in this topic area. One can restrict all editors to only use email to notify one or more admins (appointed by ArbCOm for this task) about suspected socks, one can restrict everyone from reverting talk page comments made by suspected socks. Also one should advice editors to keep discussions about possible socks on-wiki limited as much as possible, so as to not compromize any investigations going on behind the scene. This can be mentioned on a general sanctions notification on the talk pages of all the articles in this topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My personal experience suggests that Mathsci doesn't have a battleground attitude
SilkTork suggests that he may have a battleground attitude based on an encounter with a problem editor in this field, but that is not a clean measurement of his attitude because of the problematic nature in this field (I'm not familiar with this field). I can tell that he doesn't have a battleground attitude from an editing encounter I had with Mathsci on the Barnes G-function article a long time ago on a point where he at first strongly disagreed with me. He is simply a vigorous editor who will be sharp about making sure that no mistakes slip in an article. I wanted to correct a mistake in the asymptotic expansion of the function, the problem was caused by a typo in the source, and for Wikipedia that's already a difficult issue to deal with. Add to that that Matschi was interpreting the Bernoulli numbers in terms of an old, by now obsolete convention (which became apparant later during the discussions), and you can see that any battleground mentality about wanting to keep my correction out, would lead to a big fight. However, the editing of the article after some talk page discussion proceeded in a correct way.
So, the limited editing experience I have with Mathsci suggests to me that a serious editor may at most have some serious discussions in case of an initial disagreement with Mathsci, but it won't degenerate into a fight. On the contrary, such discussions may be needed to clear up issues promptly, even issues that would lead to stalemate with most other wiki-editors. The flip side of this is that an editor who is not serious, who has some inappropriate agenda when editing, will not have pleasant editing experience with Matsci.
Other editors would handle disputes with problem editors differently, but then one also has to consider why out of all the editors we have here Matsci ended up editing in ths field. Indeed, why did Matschi choose to edit Wikipedia at all and get involved here? Only if Matsci would happen to be a battleground editor who typically chases away other serious editors, could the case be made that Mathsci is not the "right" type of editor who would typically be editing in this field. To the contrary, he is the type of editor who you would expect to find in this field. It's similar to why it was no coincidence why someone like William ended up becomign a prominent editor of the climate science articles here.
Unlike Mathsci, William did have some problems that had to be addressed (e.g. in the BLP area), but the fundamental issue is the same. If a website has a high page ranking, and it contains mistakes, there will be a pressure to change that. If there is a pressure to keep the page from correcting itself, there will be an even higher pressure to steer it in the right direction. If that were not the case, then that site would be unstable against perturbations and wouldn't last long being a prominent site. Wikipedia's formula makes it successful, so the right way to think about the pressures in the system is to frame it in terms of the pressures that push back against its goals. At most one can think of relieving the pressure on Matschi by letting other editors do what he is doing now. Count Iblis (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the standard procedure, then fine. By the wording of the notice, however, the filing here seems to be jumping to one of the most vexatious methods of interacting in an attempt to bypass the AE sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom00:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support the analysis and comments of Fut.Perf. That this has been allowed to linger in a broad manner and not merely been swiftly shut down or limited to a review of Cla's ban is (yet another) pretty poor reflection on the process here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upon recent events
One would hope that and Arb members considering extending mutual interation ban against Zeromus1 would take into account the fact that he has been banned through checkuser as a sock of F the Assassin and choose a more appropriate action. 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment from The ed17
@RedPen, this seems to be an appropriate venue for the filer, despite the nominal restriction. Arbitration enforcement was tried (and failed, in the filer's view), and this isn't a request for clarification or an amendment. Ed[talk][majestic titan]23:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by MBisanz
Red Pen seems to point out a technical flaw in the filing that I'll defer to Arbcom on depending on how rigidly they want to interpret the rules. That said, I think the Committee should just make it so IBans done under this case are mutual, not unilateral and that only the individual upon whom the ban is personally placed may appeal the ban. This would prevent professional advocates or opposing parties from gaming the system to negate the effect of the decision. MBisanztalk00:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Johnuniq
Rather than finding matters than might need arbitration, those interested in Mathsci should empirically determine whether any perceived battlefield conduct would be apparent if Mathsci were left alone. Mathsci only commented on Cla68 because the latter chose to make a statement at AE (diff—a complaint that Mathsci had removed a message from a banned user at Cla68's talk). That statement followed a comment at the same AE made by Cla68 two days earlier with the implication that Mathsci's behavior should be examined (diff). It may be the case that a different strategy for dealing with socks should be employed, but blaming the victim is never helpful, and WP:DENY is the best strategy. Particularly given the history, why would anyone consider that the removal of "a harmless remark" warranted a statement at AE? Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mathsci
Following comments of Newyorkbrad here and on his talk page, I have shortened my comments to include only the main points
This request has not been made in good faith and is tenuously related to WP:ARBR&I, despite the title. It has been made when I was known to be in ill health. It includes claims that reverting or making an SPI report on a banned wikihounder (with serious outing issues) is a form of battle. It has not been used as an appeal of AE sanctions to higher authorities by the sanctioned parties, Cla68, The Devil's Advocate and Zeromus1. It has been used for making personal attacks on me, unrelated to the RfAr. In particular I have been blamed for sanctions or bans proposed, discussed and enacted by arbitrators and administrators. The personal attacks have been accompanied by demands for sanctions on me, which are unjustified, would encourage the banned wikihounder and penalise me for his misconduct. Admins FPaS, MC, TC and NW were listed as parties although clearly not WP:INVOLVED. Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the proposed motion
No concrete jusitification has been given for imposing sanctions on me. There has been no disruptive conduct, no enabling of banned editors, no attempts to start processes unduly against other users. A small number of arbitrators have suggested hypothetical possible "gaming of the system" at some future time. No evidence has been produced in my case to suggest that would happen. On the contrary the three sanctioned editors have gamed the systeme here by making unfounded and escalating personal attacks on me, violating their AE sanctions. None of them has appealed those sanctions here, which were imposed because of specific edits. Cla68 has argued that the wikihounding by Ehcigo mole does not happen and has suggested that on the contrary I have hounded Echigo mole and his 60 odd sockpuppets. Vitriol or not, no reasonable person would argue that the string of confirmed socks, many created in 2009 and all following me either to article or project space, is somehow my fault and that I am responsible for the disruption/trolling of this community banned mischief-maker: Quotient group, Julian Birdbath, Zarboublian, Holding Ray, Taciki Wym, A.B.C.Hawkes,
Ansatz, Captain Abu Raed, Fancy Smith, Peter Mackerel, Sophie Germaine, Southend sofa, Spar-stangled, The Wozbongulator, Axolotl mirror, Bogulus, C.D. Tondela, Caderousse, Collared Joists?, Explanatorium, Flexural strength, G.W.Zinbiel, Gangs of Wasseypur, Glenbow Goat, I'm sorry about your trousers, Intromission, Japanese work environment, Keynesian beauty contest, Keystone Crow, Krod Mandoon, Laura Timmins, Leon Gonsalez, Mamsapuram, Mirror symmetry, Old Crobuzon, Peshawar Cantonment, Recapitulation theory, Reginald Fortune, Rita Mordio, Rue Cardinale, Sansodor, South Jutland County, Speed climbing, Static web page, The Phrontistery, The Ringer, Thrapostulator, Tryphaena, Ultra snozbarg, Vurrgh, Water marble nail, William Hickey, Wobbleposture. Has Cla68 really analysed the edits of all these indef blocked sockpuppets or of the even larger number of identified ipsocks? In the same way, The Devil's Advocate (on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2) and Zeromus1 (taking up the DeviantArt campaign of "write Mathsci out of the equation" as Roger Davies put it) have suggested that a large part of my editing is aimed at driving editors with whom I ideologically disagree from wikipedia. They mention the names of Ludwigs2, Captain Occam, Miradre and TrevelyanL85A2. But there is not one jot of evidence to support that claim. Indeed in several lengthy arbcom cases/reviews/amendments, allegations of that kind has been examined and rejected by arbitrators, eg Ferahgo's accusations [mostly submitted by email] that she and Occam had been harassed [rejected May 2012] and the two amendments requested by The Devil's Advocate on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2 [rejected September 2012]. It is gaming the system continually to reiterate such serious but baseless charges. It essentially tries to reopen matters that have been examined previously in great detail and resolved satisfactorily by the arbitration committee. So no, I am not "at battle with Echigo mole": I am the unfortunate victim of his army of socks and ipsocks, whose methods of disruption have become increasingly devious. And no, I am not personally responsible for the fact that Ludwigs2, Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, TrevelyanL85A2, Miradre, Mikemikev and others are no longer editing wikipedia, even if the DeviantArtist group and their enablers keep saying so. Penalizing me for being the victim of Echigo mole or the equally persistent DeviantArt campaign, also orchestrated by banned users, would be a new departure for the arbitration committee. It is not surprising that no administrator active at WP:AE has agreed with the arguments for symmetric sanctions. The situation is not symmetric, since at present I am the sole victim of the two campaigns of disruption due to the DeviantArt group and Echigo mole. [WeijiBaikeBianji was the first victim of the DeviantArt campaign; cf the findings in the R&I review.] The current motion would give the green light from arbcom for both of these activities. If at any time a disruptive user was sanctioned at AE and I had happened to comment, that user could now simply request a new RfAr "Race and intelligence N + 1" centred on my edits and, with the precedent/loophole created here that there is immunity from AE sanctions on arbcom-related pages, request a corresponding sanction on me. From my point of view all of the following requests were similar and increasingly disruptive:
RfAr by Echigo mole [252]; RfAr by TrevelyanL85A2 [253]; RfAm by The Devil's Advocate [254]; and RfAr by Cla68 [255].
So by all means sanction me if I have edited disruptively (providing evidence beyond the unsubstantiated personal attacks presented here). Otherwise, per WP:CRYSTAL, please don't try to sanction me for something I haven't done or even vaguely hinted at. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ErrantX's comments miss the point. Amongst other things Echigo mole trolls on mathematical articles that I have created and on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. The edits are incompetent and either superficial or erroneous, so are simply reverted. In the particular topics where I have been creating articles, there are very few expert editors on wikipedia, including administrators. So please don't blame Echigo mole's wikihounding on me or imagine that there are plety of people who could spot it in mathematical articles. SPI and CU work just fine for blocking the socks. That's what they are intended for. At the moment that is the only way to deal with wikistalkers. Examples of sock accounts that have trolled in mathematics articles include A.K.Nole (talk·contribs), Quotient group (talk·contribs), Julian Birdbath (talk·contribs), Southend sofa (talk·contribs), Ansatz (talk·contribs), South Jutland County (talk·contribs) and Spar-stangled (talk·contribs), as well as IPsocks in known ranges. He's followed me to classical music articles, articles on early saints, articles on French culture, etc. The list of socks above speaks for itself. Penalizing me for being wikihounded is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia as mutliple users have already pointed out. Echigo mole's trolling on arbcom pages is intermittent. It is usually dealt with fairly rapidly, but not always. Mathsci (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal to Cla68
Cla68's personal attacks continue:[256]"Mathsci appears to be somehwat obsessed with the ongoing battle between him and this banned editor. I believe that one-way interaction bans are enabling this behavior, because it appears to be granting Mathsci license to seek sanctions against anyone he perceives of getting in his way in this ongoing game of wits he and the other editor are involved in." Why distort in this way the relation between a wikihounder and his victim? Because of my illness (I go today to the Heart Hospital to check for seepage in my chest wound), my editing of wikipedia is cut down drastically to almost nothing. No content edits. I am shocked that in those circumstances anybody would try to misrepresent my editing. I wish I were not ill, that I had not had three minor heart attacks, that I had not needed an emergency triple bypass operation, that my leg and chest wounds were healing cleanly, that I was not stranded in London away from my home in France. But that is unfortunately how it is. Please could Cla68 stop making personal attacks at my expense and please show a little more consideration for others, in less fortunate circumstances than himself. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Anthony (AGK) for running a checkuser based on similarities in the editing that I provided by email to him. AGK has now blocked the sock indefinitely. The motion at the moment makes no sense. The Devil's Advocate supported her here and in article space, which taints his edits and undermines most of his evidence. This is the second time he has acted in cahoots with a DeviantArt editor. The first time was with TrevelyanL85A2. Zeromus1/Ferahgo lied about her former accounts and dissimulated in almost all her 160 odd edits. In fairness to arbitrators it was only by allowing her leeway to expand her thoughts on arbcom-related pages (in particular User talk:AGK) that she wrote enough for her editing style, choice of topics and phraseology to become apparent. I imagine, however, that this was more by accident than design. Mathsci (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given their known close friendship and the similarity between their "stories" here, SightWatcher was undoubtedly "in the know" that Zeromus1 was an alternative abusive sockpuppet account of Ferahgo. He was therefore complicit in her attempts to deceive the arbitration committee and others for the umpteenth time. SightWatcher and Ferahgo both gamed the system by referring to the extended topic bans on TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher as "one-way interaction bans". They tried to use that as yet another device in their WP:BATTLE to drive me off wikipedia, just as they had successfully achieved with WeijiBaikeBianji. Since The Devil's Advocate has boasted of his ongoing off-wiki contacts with TrevelyanL85A2, he could also have been aware what was going on. He certainly has been editing in concert with Ferahgo. Arbitrators proposing any kind of action as a result of this RfAr should rethink matters knowing that the request has been severely compromised by Ferahgo and her sympathisers/admirers (SightWatcher, The Devil's Advocate and Cla68). At least here we had the novelty of Zeromus1/Ferhago using this opportunity to recite her litany of trumped-up complaints against me directly instead of getting one of her minions to do it for her. Mathsci (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A.K.Nole
SilkTork has picked edits to an article about a fringe scientist, that has now been deleted. The scientist was a member of the boards of the "organisations" set up by Ruggero Santilli and Myron Evans (inventor of ECE theory, the stub srticle that superseded the deletion of the BLP). Trained in astronomy, he was a member of the mathematics department at the University of Hull which no longer exists. I am not quite sure of the signficance of an article deleted in 2009. Here is the ANI thread that followed A.K.Nole's mathematical trolling on Butcher group and its talk page.[261] He had been blocked by another mathematical administrator (WMC). In that thread from 2009, senior mathematical administrators, including two arbitrators, commented about A.K.Nole's attempts to discuss or write mathematical content: "A.K.Nole has been active on the talk page, asking very naive questions at a rate that could easily be annoying to the other people there who are trying to get some editing done." (David Eppstein), "The addition of those bits from Butcher group to the other article are out of place in the renormalisation calculation articles. It is an understatement to say that the edit lowered the quality of the article. I hesitate to ramble too much here (but have done so on my talk page in response to Exxolon's request), as I have only been briefly acquainted with most of the general sphere relating to Hopf algebras." (YellowMonkey) "Re A.K.Nole: I believe that what David Eppstein, Charles Matthews, and I have each said is that your comments on Talk:Butcher group reflect so poorly that it makes one wonder if you might be writing in an intentionally naive way. There are certainly more productive ways to communicate, and they are not hard to acquire. There are many non-experts who edit math articles, so I do not think this is simply a matter of credentials." (CBM) " The article is highly technical, current research mathematics. There has been some quibbling on the Talk page. I was reminded of a comment from Frank Adams about how "anyone who knows enough to ask that question knows enough to answer it". User:A.K.Nole does seem to be being unnecessarily provocative about matters of exposition. Not as provocative as the first remark on the page." (Charles Matthews) The account A.K.Nole was abandoned in 2009 at around the same time about 50 or more sleeping sock acconts were created. One of those was Quotient group. I don't know if A.K.Nole was socking actively elsewhere in 2009 (edits related to the hoax articles of Jspearmint?). It seems too much like WP:POINT selectively to examine just three or four edits of A.K.Nole from 2009, when it was documented in the R&I review that the arbitration committee have had to help deal with the subsequent socking since then, including at one stage in 2010 a three month range block. The edits to Penny Birch for example are simultaneous with the creation of Penny Birch. That is one of the SPI traits, e.g. Echigo mole was created simultaneously to ipsock edits to Echigo Mole. But what relevance does this have to arbcom proceedings? It is expecting a little too much of the model of wikipedia to imagine that teenage users with a rudimentary training in first year undergraduate mathematics are equipped to understand and write about post-graduate material in mathematics or mathematical physics. (I admit that can happen very occaionally in real life, but it is quite exceptional even in the top institutes.)
SilkTork's wish to have an arbcom case looking at my conduct alone is unwarranted. If that is based on his analysis of the edits from 2009 on the talk page of the deleted BLP of a fringe scientist, I think he is on very shakey ground indeed. Was he aware of the BLPs, churned out from 2007 onwards, about those to whom Ruggero Santilli had awarded prizes? That walled garden of articles, many written by Santilli or his associates, was discussed at length on WP:FTN. For comparison other arbitrators should look at the informed comments of the expert editors CBM, Charles Matthews, David Eppstein and YellowMonkey at the time of A.K.Nole's attempts to write about mathematics/mathematical physics (see above). They tell a completely different story and show some awareness of my own content editing and skills. I have copies of all the emails of Shell Kinney regarding Quotient group, the first major sockpuppet account of A.K.Nole. They show how evasive Quotient group was about admitting to being an alternative account of A.K.Nole. In the last emails he promised not to follow my edits, but that promise was broken fairly soon. Indeed when he made it, he had already created some time before that 100 or more sleeping sock accounts! That is unfortunately the reality of this situation; it cannot be seen in a 2009 snapshot of a deleted page taken out of context. I know it's fun for those with a phobia of science to blur the line between science and fringe science, but that can only be taken so far. The deletion discussion was clear enough Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Dunning-Davies and A.K.Nole voted delete. There was also a sockpuppet disrupting that AfD (Benson Verazzano (talk·contribs), aka TheThankful (talk·contribs)). Looking back at comments in 2009, I would choose my words far more carefully now than I did then. But does it need yet another arbcom case to confirm that? Presumably I started editing the article Jeremy Dunning-Davies in 2007 or 2008 and A.K.Nole followed me there in 2009. Just a minor detail, but nevertheless all part of the underlying "wikihounding" picture. That's what happens when an arbitrator engages in a drama-fest about a deleted article that only admins can see. Mathsci (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate on wikipediocracy
Four days after supporting TrevelyanL85A2 at WP:AE on 8 July,[262] The Devil's Advocate made outspoken comments in a thread on "wikipediocracy.com".[263][264][265][266] The comments made it quite clear that he was going to align himself with site-banned users (Occam-Ferahgo) and engage himself in their campaign against me. He later was in off-wiki contact with TrevelyanL85A2. At an even later stage he was banned from wikipediocracy. Mathsci (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork's enabling of ipsocks of Echigo mole
SilkTork seems to be holding his own private trial on his user talk page. He is attempting to resuscitate the reputation of A.K.Nole. He overlooks the trolling on Butcher group and dismisses Shell Kinney's checkuser blocks from 2011 (Holding Ray, one month after a range block and blocks of Zarboublian, Taciki Wym and Julian Birdbath). The account A.K.Nole was created on 2 May 2009. I have pointed out to SilkTork that multiple confirmed sleeping socks were created before that. These include
At least five further accounts were created before the start of A.K.Nole's name appearing on noticeboards in June. The sleeping socks were indef blocked for later disruption; SilkTork has given no reasonable explanation of this highly problematic feature of A.K.Nole's editing. Trolling posts, identical to previous posts of Echigo mole on arbcom pages from the same ISP that Echigo mole has used since December 2011, have recently been placed on SilkTork's talk page. These include [267][268] and [269]. The latter post, which mentions suspected socks of A.K.Nole, is a repetition of standard trolling that Echigo mole has been placing all over the place on wikipedia for some time now. Given the back knowledge, the ISP provider and the dreary repetition, this is beyond a doubt Echigo mole per Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. I scored through the edits, appending an explanation, per WP:BAN.[270] SilkTork
removed the scoring as if this were not an ipsock of Echigo mole[271] with the edit summary:WP:NOBAN - WP:TPO SilkTork apparently is now presumably taking full responibility for that restored post. Cireland had already explained to SilkTork the history and nature of Echigo mole's socking.[272] SilkTork apparently has formed his own opinion, which places him beyond the arbcom motion for which he voted on 17 September.[273] Please could SilkTork explain to other arbitrators why he is deliberately enabling and encouraging a banned user, given that motion. He subsequently collapsed almost all my responses on his talk page. A post by a Korean IPsock of Mikemikev also appeared on th talk page.[274] Mikemikev had previously made this edit using his favourite image. [275] It was removed automatically by NuclearWarfare and I tagged the account. Eventually SilkTork removed Mikemikev's post from his talk page.[276] SilkTork has allowed Cla68, The Devil's Advocate and Echigo mole a further forum for violating their AE sanctions and community bans. His statements seem ill-judged (he ignores Cireland) and show an unjustified bias against me. Presumably he would have allowed the Occam-Ferahgo sock similar freedoms on his talk page had various users not pointed out repeatedly that Zeromus1 was almost certainly a sock of Occam-Ferahgo (the accounts being indistinguishable). AGK's checkuser block was confirmed after an appeal of Zeromus1 to WP:BASC. Mathsci (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork's restoration of postings from the banned user Echigo mole has been reverted by Future Perfect at Sunrise.[277] The posting was blatant trolling by Echigo mole and so was exactly within the context of the arbcom motion. If SilkTork failed to notice that, his judgement is compromised. Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork is proposing to support the motion, based solely on a deleted edit from 2009 when I had a discussion with A.K.Nole. To make any case, SilkTork should provide more recent evidence from 2012 and the evidence should come from a publicly viewable page. SilkTork has in addition cast doubt on the chain of A.K.Nole/Echigo mole sockpuppets and the reliability of checkuser/arbitrators like Shell Kinney. Very recently he has restored one edit by a blatant Echigo mole sock, contrary to the motion that he voted for. He has remained silent about the abusive socking of Zeromus1 which has caused me added distress. The account turned out to be an attack-only account and that would appear to invalidate the motion. Since The Devil's Advocate has tag teamed with this Occam-Ferahgo sock on Race and intelligence, that places a cloud over his own participation here. Please therefore could the following three points be clarified:
SilkTork's enabling of an Echigo mole ipsock who had made trolling remarks about my statements on sockpuppetry on User talk:SilkTork
Occam-Ferahgo's disruptive role as a sock in this RfAr
The Devil's Advocate's tag team editing with the Occam-Ferahgo sock and his support for the sock on this page.
The TLDR version: Cla68 started to attack Mathsci [278][279] in an AE thread in which Cla68 showed up after being canvassed from a tor exit node [280]. FPaS tried to hat the conversation [281], but since Cla68 would not drop the WP:STICK[282][283], he was banned by T. Canens from commenting on Mathsci [284]. The last thing we need are enablers for Echigo Mole's trolling; he was simultaneously active at that WP:AE, probably with two accounts and several IPs. There is a SPI ongoing. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SirFozzie: I think Mathsci should take the time to file a WP:LTA report on Echigo Mole, so others can have easier access to the background info. Mathsci's behavior in this case has been a bit sub-optimal, first by making an aside about TDA, Zeromous1 and YvelinFRance in a R&I case involving a different group of editors [285] (which degenerated in a large side-conversation, but was eventually filed as a separate report) and then by filing an AE thread on Cla68 [286] (eventually merged with the ongoing one on TDA and Zeromus1 [287].) I suspect this was a contributing factor to Cla68's continued presence at AE. But I think Mathsci's behavior is not out of the ordinary and is perfectly understandable under the circumstances, so I don't think it warrants further committee attention. Finally, Mathsci filed a 2nd AE request against Cla68 [288], this time for Cla68's filing of the present Arbitration request; AE admins can deal with that request on its merits. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This request completely fails to address the real reason for the ibans. The Devil Advocate's was restoring a edit by a Echigo Mole's socks, and telling Zeromus1 that it's ok to do so and that Mathsci doesn't have any right to undo the edit of a banned sock in someone else's page. The Devil's Advocate was explaining to Zeromus1 that an indef blocked editor is not banned, and "The restriction also does not prohibit interactions with such editors, only restoring their edits". Here TDA is missing the goal of the last motion, where the goal is discouraging banned socks from participating in wikipedia. Encouraging Zerosmu1 to interact with indef-blocked editors, for that matter is bad advice and it's just throwing gasoline to the flames. Specially when the edit had already been identified as originating from Echigo Mole, who is a banned sockmaster, not from an indefblocked editor. Zerosmus1 seems to have believed completely this incorrect idea that it's OK to interact with editors that have been indef-blocked from editing wikipedia, and TDA is reinforcing this belief. And Cla68 was basically defending the whole thing and attacking Mathsci. Cla68 seems to have lost the perspective, in his request he claims that this comment by Mathsci is confrontional, when its actually helpful and contains good advice. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When the problems originate just from one of the parties, the logical sanction is a 1-way interaction ban. You should establish a 2-way iban only when both parties are responsible for causing the problem, which is not the case here. AE es perfectly well-equipped to upgrade to a 2-way iban if necessary. Please don't start applying gratuitous sanctions to people who haven't earned them, just because it's "fair" or "unfair" to someone who has made merits to receive a sanction. Please don't repeat one of those cases where you simply ban a few people in both "sides" without looking at who is really causing the problems, thus rewarding the troublemakers. That motion would just make play right into Echigo Mole's hands. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Penwhale
This was moved from below, by myself, at requests towards me.
I think filers were asking "How can editors, who did not edit articles related to the original request, be put on sanctions from that case?", which is odd. Furthermore, one-sided IBAN never seems to work (especially when stalking is not really the case here). As to this case's filing - well, T. Canens specifically said in his post that it can be appealed to AC, so personally I think it's okay...? Either way, one-sided IBAN does not work, in my opinion, and creates cans of worms. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps14:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Heim: As far as I could remember, when IBANs are issued by ArbCom, two-way IBANs (instead of one-way) are issued, generally, to prevent gaming. Remember that IBANs include replying to editors which generally implies that editors much work in different areas (as IBAN will prevent them from working on the same article together, generally speaking). One-way IBAN, however, could allow editors to "drive" others out (if you couldn't reply to me, and I add a comment to anything, would prevent you from refuting me - unless, of course, it's discussion about the ban itself, etc). I'm not saying MathSci would do it, but if you stare down the center you'd get why IBAN generally needs to go both ways. Also - IBAN isn't technically a "sanction" in this sense, or at least I don't think it is. I feel it's more "people need to take a step back from the center and carry on with their separate lives" - without destroying each other. It's not a good analogy, but it would have to do, for now. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps05:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by SightWatcher
As Mathsci has mentioned me by name in his statement above, I assume I'm allowed to comment here.
Could the mutual interaction bans please cover me and TrevelyanL85A2 as well? We're also under one-way interaction bans, and are basically in the same boat as Cla68, Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate. Even when I've avoided both Mathsci and the R&I topic for many months at a time, he hasn't stopped paying attention to me and seeking sanctions against me. TrevelyanL85A2 gave more detail about our situation in this comment. [291] This situation makes me very uncomfortable at Wikipedia, and is part of why I haven't edited much for the past few months. I have no desire to return to the R&I topic area, but making my interaction ban with Mathsci mutual would make it easier for me to return to constructive editing elsewhere.
Comment by SB_Johnny
Mathsci's comment above describing Cla68's request as "a cynical escalation by a user who knows I am in ill health and wants to cause me even more distress for a nonexistent dispute and non-existent incident" is concerning on a number of levels. I suggest enacting the ban 2 way quickly and without drama, and perhaps revisiting when he has recovered from his procedure.
Comment by Heim
I too am rather concerned about the arbs' statements in favour of making this a mutual iban. As FutPerf and TC say, it's undermining the AE admins with no refutation of their actions, suggesting there's no good reason at all. I can say that I too would rethink my willingness to participate at AE if ArbCom's going to micromanage like this. That's a mild loss coming from me, since I rarely have time to, anyway, but you really ought to listen to TC, at least, since he's one of the more active admins there. At the least, if the Arbs are truly convinced one-way ibans don't work, they ought to spell that out in the discretionary sanctions.
I also am rather concerned the committee discussing placing Mathsci under sanctions, as far as I can tell, purely on procedural grounds. Sanctions leave a mark on your record, whether deserved or not, and no one should be tarred with that brush without good behavioural grounds, which I haven't found any arbs have cited at all. It's a particularly poor way to reward someone who's being harassed by a banned user. Heimstern Läufer(talk)03:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with TC. If the committee's going to modify AE sanctions, and indeed place people under sanctions, on a hunch, you may enforce your decisions yourself, as I will be uninterested in doing so. As for all the comments about "if we occasionally modify a sanction, this does not mean we don't value AE admins": It's not the frequency of modification, it's the flippancy. If the committee altered AE rulings several times a month on actual behaviour-based arguments, I'd have no problem with them (indeed, the problem would lie with the AE admins then). When they do so even once based on what their crystal ball told them, I'm afraid that's not something I'm into. Heimstern Läufer(talk)13:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Community input from Nobody Ent
Per AGK's solicitation
While I am sad to hear that Mathsci is in poor health and wish him a speedy recovery, health issues should not be a reason for steering the course of dispute resolution. References to them come across as condescending (as in the request) or patronizing (elsewhere here). If WP editing has become a significant stressor for Mathsci (or any other editor), I urge them to just stop. It's just a website, the pay sucks, and real life health and happiness are far more important.
I'm sympathetic to the perspective that restrictions, such as interaction bans, leave a "mark" on an editor's record. However on Wikipedia, the quest for "Justice" is too frequently a Siren leading to hazard. There is not, and should not, be justice here. Common sense should indicate the beneficiary of a one-way ban does not edit the bannee's talk page. The committee should either extend the bans to two-way, or make strong suggestions to Mathsci that he be more discreet in the future.
The anyone can edit ethos of Wikipedia which, if I recall correctly, is mandated by the foundation, means that socks and trolls will be with us always. Again, while sympathetic to the stress cause by chronic harassment, Mathsci's behavior is reminiscent of the person whose car is stolen after being left running in the street keys with the door unlocked. Mathsci's actions -- going around reverting edits, frequent posts on Elen's talk page et. al. are providing positive feedback to the harasser(s). As he suspects socks, he should simply file SPIs and let the rest of the community deal with rest of it.Nobody Ent12:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the consensus ethos of Wikipedia, the actions of every editor are subject to review. No topic ban not imposed directly by the committee should be considered to apply to the ArbCom spaces: complaints of ban violation because a case was filed are frivolous bureaucracy. Wikipedia:Arbitration spaces are actively monitored and managed by the clerks, so banning is not necessary to prevent disruption.
Likewise, review of AE actions by the committee are not, and should not be perceived, micromanagement but rather just part of the consensus process. The majority of AE actions are upheld with little comment; that the committee occasionally takes a look at a particularly contentious issue should not be taken personally. Nobody Ent12:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Alanscottwalker
If the commitee is interested in "evening" the burden (regardless of merit) it should just consider rescinding one or more of the one way interaction bans, altogether. On another matter, it seems frankly bizarre, patronizing, or insulting to try to make the case that Mathci needs to be saved from himself. The only question should be whether others need to be saved from him? (Or alternatively whether others need leave him alone). But if Mathci is "harassing" you would need a case (and lots more evidence) to establish that. In particular, more than isolated AE spats. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The motion is a mess. 1) It begins by praising admins for enacting the one way bans. 2) It then asserts that they should have enacted a two way ban. The reason given for doing so is something that has not occurred but may in the future, but only if one in a predetermined manner Assumes Bad Faith. The talk of "fairness" in regard to future assumed bad faith is illogical and worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On another matter, one feels constrained to remind the committee that "socking" attacks the very foundation for the running of this Project, which is mutual trust in consensus achieved by independent Users in good standing. Without that trust, there is no way to run this Project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) The assumption of bad faith in the motion also attacks that trust. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ken is correct. Whether or not it is the intention of Users to facilitate the disruption of banned/blocked Users, the recent case of the sock block of a User the committee motion seeks to benefit shows that it occurs. Users, such as Mathci or other Users, must therefore be able to point out and discuss facilitation of blocked/banned Users. The motion not only seeks to shut down such discussion but also actively promotes the facilitation of such disruption by blocked/banned Users. The motion should be rejected. Instead, Users should be warned not to intentionally or otherwise, seek to facilitate, or alternatively a case should be opened to discuss such facilitation and user and community response to it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be lost on anyone that it was the editing by a banned/blocked sock, which has apparently triggered the events leading to this Request for intervention by the committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect: Don't see how Silk Tork's comments that have been disputed by Count Iblis are disruptive. The motion is badly formed and poorly supported and reasoned, but it will (hopefully) go away in a bit. (Mathsci, may appear to need to be reminded not to make things personal, and perhaps others also need such reminder, as well. Although Silk Tork raises a process functioning concern, which is not at all addressed in the motion, and could do with some mooting, elsewhere, before any formal case, and at lower levels.) - Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silk Tork: With respect to Overturning AE, would you address the standard that should be applied? If AE admins are granted discretion, than the usual standard is "abuse of discretion." So, overturn for manifest error (error that most uninvolved can see and say, "that is manifestly wrong"), but that does not mean that you overturn just because you would have decided it differently, in the first instance. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Making the interaction ban two-way is rewarding one side of this issue for their unrelenting efforts to punish Mathsci. I energeticaly urge the committee to reject this motion.
(2) Urging Mathsci to step back is, again, a seemingly prudent action, but, in fact, he has been instrumental in preventing blatant and rampant socking in this area, and his removal from the scene would allow these activities to go on unabated -- unless the committee is volunteering to take his place, such suggestions are misplaced and only apparently and superficially judicious.
(3) It would be generally helpful if the analyses of the committee members were somewhat deeper and more penetrating than their comments betray. Blocks are needed here, not easy and anodyne statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make the obvious point: the socking of Ferahgo the Assassin as Zeromus1 makes it clear why an asymmetrical solution -- a one-way interaction ban -- is the appropriate solution here, since the dispute itself is highly asymmetrical, with multiple banned editors aligned with sympathetic "inside" editors to harass Mathsci. Several editors and arbs have commented on the suboptimal behavior of Mathsci, but I see it as a quite reasonable and very human response to the relentless attacks he has been subjected to. That some arbs appear to be ready to reward his tormentors is highly unfortunate. I would not go as far as FPaS and say "Fuck you, Arbcom", but this can hardly been seen as the committee's finest moment, when even some of the (usually) most level-headed members seem unable to see beyond the superficialities and take a stance against ongoing disruption and for the rights of innocent and productive editors. I urge the committee to take a deep breath and re-evaluate the situation, since its initial response is discouraging. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: Your comments below (under "Comments on motion") are some of the most egregious mis-interpretations of the actions and intentions of a user I have ever seen in connection with an ArbCom request. I am truly and honestly appalled, and will not say more for fear of unwittingly violating WP:NPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if other arbitrators would suggest to Silk Tork (if they haven't done so already) that he or she should step back from this situation, about which they appear to have lost all sense of reasonable judgment and are on the verge of going rogue. Their actions are not helping, and are actively enabling banned users harassing a valued member of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by R. Baley
Approval of this motion supports gaming. AE is perfectly capable of instituting a 2 way ban should it prove necessary. Cla68 should be blocked for flouting the ban -not rewarded for it by ignoring the gaming of it here. I urge the current arbs who have given it approval thus far to reconsider and I ask that arbitrators who have not yet done so, to quickly put this misguided motion to bed. If there should prove any need for further action, it should go through the usual route at AE. R. Baley (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by ErrantX
@FuturePerf: If, as I understand it, Mathsci is being harassed by this banned user: then, yes, anything that deters him from reacting to the harasser is a good thing. I am only slightly aware of the background here, but the first obvious solution to any harassment is abstaining from interaction of any sort. Others should take up the task of reverting this individual - because this sort of thing is exactly what the harasser appears to be aiming for.
I am not sure why Matchsci is still interacting in this way, but he desperately needs to stop: it either looks dodgy (i.e. can't drop the stick) or is symptomatic of harassment victims (unable to extract themselves). --Errant(chat!)17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@FuturePerf: I disagree, FWIW. So long as it is explained not as a "sanction" or punishment, but as an "intervention" to try and help him step back. In my experience this is often the only way to end harassment problems. Digging into it a bit more I encourage arbcom to consider this as a motion; it appears that the activity of this banned user is in large part continuing due to Mathsci's difficulty disengaging. --Errant(chat!)17:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci; I sympathise with your position, and with your current medical condition (seriously, stop editing for a bit, it is not helping you!) But I have dug into this a bit more and, as I suspected, we are in the classic situation of the harasser being able to goad the victim and the victim unable to extricate himself. I would advise you to stick to removing socked content edits & ignoring all user talk space additions (which seems to be the core of any disputes). More to the point, if your medical condition renders you unable to edit Wikipedia fully for a while then, according to your description, these mathematical topics are going to be abused.. you would be better "training" up a couple of friends to watch out for this material.
Breaking the cycle of harassment is difficult, and the most important one is to stop interacting. If it is not you reverting this guy then he will find it much harder to goad you out! Find a couple of friends and collaborate by email to have them revert the socked additions. Your involvement in combatting this troll is contributing to the ongoing issue because of the deep personal investment you have. --Errant(chat!)15:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Aprock
I can only say that I'm impressed that Ehcigo mole has finally succeeded in getting ArbCom to consider shooting the messenger. If this motion passes, it will truly be a victory for tenacious and disruptive sock-puppets. aprock (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Kww
This is one of the most egregiously ridiculous acts I have seen even considered by Arbcom: a 2-way interaction ban between a user in good standing and a sockpuppet account of a banned user? Between a user in good standing and an edit that acts to facilitate a banned user? No.
Socking is the largest problem facing Wikipedia. We have privacy policies on English Wikipedia that greatly exceed what is demanded of us by the WMF, and the sockpuppeteers take advantage of that to abuse us. In a case like this, the best step is full public disclosure of all identifying information of the attackers so that all admins can take precautions against them, and to crack down on any editor that intentionally aids them. The idea that pervasive and constant socking and disruption should be rewarded by muzzling the people that resist it is abhorrent.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's wonderful. Wouldn't it have been better to simply indefinitely block every editor that assisted in the torment? At least then you would have been levying sanctions against people that deserved it.—Kww(talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*I think filers were asking "How can editors, who did not edit articles related to the original request, be put on sanctions from that case?", which is odd. Furthermore, one-sided IBAN never seems to work (especially when stalking is not really the case here). As to this case's filing - well, T. Canens specifically said in his post that it can be appealed to AC, so personally I think it's okay...? - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Moving this upwards; Recuse at suggestions given to me. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/3)
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)
I tend to think that while this issue is not ripe for a full case (in my opinion, Mathsci probably would best be served in letting other people do the banned user hunting). I would suggest that the parties agree to completely disengage from each other and stop filing nine billion ArbRequests in the various flavors. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to the charge that filing a case is a violation of the one way interaction ban.. we allow folks to appeal AE sanctions to us when they feel it's justified, as this is the final stop of dispute resolution. Normally, we have a high bar towards accepting these requests (as we would have to be shown that the AE admins were clearly outside of reasonableness when placing or enforcing a sanction). However, one sided interaction bans are so game-able (as this request shows), that it would probably be best to make the interaction bans mutual. SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, please do not do that. We are aware of the situation, and we can review the interaction bans placed at AE as part of our mandate. Should they cross the line here, we will take care of it. SirFozzie (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a case. One effect of opening a case here would be to provide entertainment value for the malicious banned user(s) who has, wittingly or otherwise, provoked this entire drama. A second effect might be to cause stress to an editor with a self-identified serious health issue. Whether or not there are issues here that would otherwise be worth arbitrating, they are not of such importance that it is worth doing either of these things. I urge the AE administrators to resolve related threads there in as drama-free a fashion as possible for similar reasons. Most of the editors involved in this situation need to step back and ask themselves whether they may have lost their sense of perspective. If this doesn't happen then at some point we may have to do something, but opening a Race and intelligence 2 case is unlikely to be the best way to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having caught up on the discussion of the past few days, I stick with my vote to decline the case, and I do not see the need for any kind of motion. (I think that Mathsci would be well-advised to step back a bit from the fray here and leave some of the burden of dealing with the banned user(s) in question to others, but that is personal advice and not something that needs to be addressed by formal means.) I would like to strongly second the sentiment that for the ArbCom to modify a decision at AE is not any form of reflection on the administrators who made the decision at AE—just as when I as an arbitrator make a proposal and it is voted down by my 14 colleagues, I do not take it as a reflection on me. The work of the administrators who assist the Committee and the community by participating in arbitration enforcement, which is one of the more thankless administrator tasks, is appreciated by the Committee, and that is no less so even if we modify a decision made at AE on occasion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not agree with Cla that a full arbitration case is necessary, I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration). In my mind, the problem has morphed from a prolific content dispute into a more limited "personality" dispute, and in mulling over how to resolve that, I think SirFozzie's suggestion that the interaction bans be applied both ways has merit. I'd be interested in views on the prospect of extending the I-bans from my colleagues and the community. AGK[•]08:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and prefer not to amend the current sanctions at this time. In response to the AE administrators' concerns about this review of your work, I fully echo NE's last point (above); we have enormous respect for your judgement, and a solicited review of a single action should not be interpreted to be anything other than part of Wikipedia's usual arbitration process. AGK[•]09:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interaction bans are generally best applied to both users as it does generally take two to cause a dispute. When people's interactions are distracting users from building the encyclopaedia, and then end up here, it does seem appropriate to consider an interaction ban on all the involved users, so I would agree with my colleagues views above to decline the request, but open a motion making the bans two way. SilkTork✔Tea time12:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think SilkTork got this exactly right. One way ibans do not work, and that needs to be addressed, but otherwise, decline as a case, and draft a motion to enact this. Courcelles02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with SilkTork, one-way interaction bans are rarely successful, while two-way bans have a much better success rate. Of course, very often the parties on the receiving end of a two-way interaction ban aren't equally guilty, and there is sometimes a tension between imposing a remedy that is practical and a remedy that is entirely equitable. In this instance, I think we should replace the one-way interaction ban with a two-way ban, which would make the remedy more practical, although I accept this isn't entirely equitable. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see that mutual ibans might not be considered fair, they may well reduce the overall drama. I also think that Mathsci and Mole are locked in a pattern that isn't doing Mathsci any good. Mole undoubtedly intends that Mathsci spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder, and Mathsci is giving him that satisfaction by putting massive energies into sock hunting, where ignoring him would probably do more good. As it is, anyone (not just Mole) who wants to get at Mathsci knows exactly how to do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is safe to say the Committee is mixed on this issue, with several people wanting action, and several people hoping to leave the situation as it is. I was and remain concerned about the levels of vitriol in this area, and think it would be best to just take the logical step and make the interaction bans mutual. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with awareness that those responsible for enforcement will have to watch closely for gaming from the other three parties as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Striking. Have re-evaluated the situation and would prefer to close this and think things through from first principles. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When users are in conflict with each other, it is generally useful to make interaction bans two-way, and I haven't seen any reason why this should not be the case here. SilkTork✔Tea time17:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the day, I disagree with AGK and NYB; one-way Ibans are not good things. IMO, this shouldn't be read as a sanction per so, but a necessary modification for the keeping order. Courcelles01:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
We admit in this motion that we are only amending the interaction bans (so that they become "two-way") because one-way bans are malum in se. I disagree with such thinking, and would expect to see evidence that a one-way ban is causing more problems than would a two-way ban (or indeed no ban at all) before I would support this type of motion. Oppose.AGK[•]20:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I still think that Mathsci would be well-advised to step back a bit from this situation, I don't see this motion as necessary. I would add that while "one-way interaction bans" should be used circumspectly, they have their place and are not a recent innovation as has been suggested (for an example from 2008, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still of the view that this motion is unnecessary, and at this point I believe it would be highly counterproductive. The trolls who have triggered this situation (I'm referring to the banned users, not anyone else) are probably laughing their heads off at the amount of time we have allowed this entire thread to remain present on this page. My longstanding personal advice to Mathsci stands, but to an even greater extent so does my dislike for our unwittingly facilitating the harassment of our editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading people's comments, and weighing this up, but I remain concerned by the nature of Mathsci's interactions with others. This - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive - makes uncomfortable reading. It looks as though Mathsci is the injured party, vainly struggling with a troll. Yet this boils down to a personal dispute between two users - neither of whom are behaving very well. When looking at the history of the dispute, it stems from Mathsci's interaction with User:A.K.Nole back in 2009. The clash comes during editing of the now deleted Jeremy Dunning-Davies article. A.K.Nole spotted an unsourced and contentious claim in a BLP which had been tagged, and he removed it. Mathsci tries to edit the claim back in with a cite, but A.K.Nole checks the cite and finds the claim not supported by the source, at which point Mathsci reverts back with the edit summary: "Undid revision 296229072 by A.K.Nole (talk) editor doesn't know what he's talkg about)". The talkpage interaction is:
Contentious claim
I removed the "fringe science" sentence altogether as it is unsourced and likely to be contentious. A.K.Nole (talk) 19:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
It is uncontentious and backed by multiple sources. Apart from those mentioned on the text, there are videos produced by Frnacesco Fucilla with JDD describing Santilli's new physics in person. I don't personally think JDD is a notable scientist, but I didn't create the article. His fringe science leanings might make him notable.Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
If there are multiple reliable secondary sources then by all means add them to the article. What we have here is (1) a contentious claim: for a living person who is an academic scientist to be described as supporting "fringe science" is surely a priori contentious (2) inadequately sourced: article claims "web organisations" plural but references only one website (3) synthesis and/or original research: source does not state that organisation is fringe, that is a deduction from the source, not stated in it (4) coatracking: dragging in a non-notable website, bbhadronics and Santilli. I'm removing it as a clear case of WP:GRAPEVINE. A.K.Nole (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
What you say is quite inaccurate. The sources show the contrary of what you state. On a personal note, looking at your editing record, you seem to be a somewhat inexperienced wikipedian editor. It is not a very good idea to continue pushing a point of view contradicted by multiple sources, unless you wish to be blocked indefinitely. This will happen very soon if you don't bother checking things, To see how wikipedia functions in this particular area, I suggest you review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science, which directly involves JDD. Look at the video cited here before wasting any more time. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal comments have no place on this article talk page. I have responded to this "personal note" and other comments by Mathsci on my talk page. A.K.Nole (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Editing experience is relevant here, as are my other comments. JDD is indeed involved in fringe science; this is uncontentious. No synthesis is imvolved here. There is a problem due to the fact that the websites connected with Santilli, Evans, Fucilla, etc, keep changing their names and content every six months. The correct place to discuss this BLP is here, not on your talk page. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
We are going nowhere fast here. Let's have some neutral input. A.K.Nole (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And we are left with a situation we cannot easily resolve as the other user is no longer an active member of the Wikipedia community yet returns to needle Mathsci, and all we can do is block the other user, which no doubt simply prolongs the situation, causing more work and disruption for those users and admins involved in sock puppet investigations.
I'm concerned and conflicted. On the one hand we don't want users creating socks simply in order to needle users. But neither do we want users to behave as Mathsci has done in creating this awkward situation.
I'm now wondering if what we need is not a motion for an interaction ban, but a full case to look into Mathsci's conduct, and the impact he has on other users and on the project as a whole. It may well be that he is justified in the Battleground conduct he has adopted because of the nature of the users he encounters; though it could also be that we have a user whose manner creates more problems than it solves, and we may need to look at a way of modifying his behaviour to ensure he and the rest of us can continue to edit productively. I'm not actually advocating a case at the moment, but I am taking my time to think things over. SilkTork✔Tea time00:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is concerning to me that Mathsci is misrepresenting what I am attempting to do. I am becoming aware that Mathsci's manner of interactions can be abrasive and sub-optimal. This current incident which has now involved a number of users was prompted by Mathsci's actions on Cla68's talkpage which included leaving an aggressive and inflammatory comment. Cla68 overreacted; however, he was given a reason to overreact. I am not clear on why the ban was just for the person who reacted than also for the person who unnecessarily created that reaction. I note that Mathsci's manner is to issue threats - he did it to Cla68, and has done it before. I have been looking into the history of the conflict he has been having with the person he identifies as Echigo mole, and that appears to start with Mathsci's sub-optimal interaction with a user in June 2009, an event which pre-dates other matters he is raising, and in which he issued a threat. It is possible that it may start even earlier - perhaps 2006, when Mathsci was in dispute over the Myron Evans article in which he described "the work of the Civil List Scientist as a "cult"". That person appears to have been quite annoyed, and wrote to the First Minister of Wales about the incident. Of course, that may not be related, and may be another person that Mathsci has annoyed. Either way, it does seem that over a six year period, Mathsci's manner is provocative enough to create strong reactions. It happened then, and it's happening now. The full story behind the sock hounding appears very complex, and while Mathsci has his firm views on the matter, there are a range of other possibilities, and Mathsci's own contributions to this saga cannot be overlooked.
Anyway. This ArbCom case request has been turned down, and the matter before us now is the question of the motion to make the interactions bans two way. I am still looking into the matter, and hope to reach a decision some time today. Unless I am mistaken, I am not the only Committee member still waiting to vote, and if Courcelles is active on this motion then his vote to decline the motion would end this indecision. And if he is inactive, then the motion would have already failed. If I vote to accept, then the final decision would be down to Courcelles.
I am not looking at the motion as micro-managing AE, and the notion that it could be interpreted that way does not fit with the way I feel ArbCom operates. A concern was brought to us which had already been through AE, and the matter has not been resolved. ArbCom's role is to look at resolving disputes which the community have not been able to resolve. The Committee in this case is undecided if the decision of a one way ban has resolved the matter. Some members feel it has, others feel it has not. I am still undecided, and the matter is much more complex that it first appears. Mathsci has put himself on the line in dealing with certain contentious subjects, and he has got the admiration of some people on Wikipedia for doing that. But his behaviour or communication style has also been a cause for concern, and it is that aspect which I am looking at. SilkTork✔Tea time11:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional arbitrator comments (beginning November 2)
Comments here have the same weight as in the preceding section; I've broken this out simply to ensure that they aren't lost in the lengthy section above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enough. The further bickering as reflected in the parties' comments in the past couple of days has not been helpful to me and I doubt very much whether it has been helpful to my colleagues on the Committee or to anyone else. Everyone is directed to find something else to do, instanter. My personal opinion is that this request should be closed now as declined; despite that, it needs to stay open on this page until my colleagues decide whether they are going to post any motions, but that doesn't mean that there is a need for editors to post duplicative and counterproductive comments and addenda just because they open the page and the request is still here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Separating this comment from my rationale in opposition of the new motion: This motion is a good demonstration of the inherent dangers we face when making decisions by motion. With no "evidence" page and an antecedent page structure designed for basic fact-finding and community comment (not measured proceedings), motions in a case request make us likely to do things with little or no evidence. In this particular instance, a motion has been proposed with little evidence that the one-way bans are not working. Frankly, I'd rather prohibit us from making motions at all. It would be better for us to have a short case, make time to examine the situation in detail, and then write a sound decision, than for us to avoid the extra paperwork of a case and be in danger of doing the wrong thing.
On an entirely unrelated note, I also think we need to be wary of reversing the decision of the administrators who staff our enforcement noticeboard unless their decisions are rankly unjust or were made without having considered new facts. The interaction bans fall into neither category, so why are we tinkering with them—and on such a flimsy basis? AGK[•]20:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One-way interaction bans are something I'm not a fan of; they can be equitable in cases where one party has been disruptive, the other not. But, if you are interested in doing so, they are as game-able as any restriction on this site. There are large parts of my mind that want to support this motion due to that, but the concerns of micromanaging AE; and of sanctioning a user without proof of misconduct are big deals. I could sort of see simply directing AE that they should make the i-bans two ways at the first sign of gaming, but I imagine that has a good chance to be a net increase in strife. Courcelles08:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this wasn't noticed earlier, but in any case: please note I have indefinitely blocked Zeromus1 as a likely sock of the banned user Ferahgo the Assassin. AGK[•]23:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Future Perfect, please calm down. If the arbitrator with a tie-breaking vote requires some time to consider his position, I am prepared to accommodate him, and so should you be. AGK[•]16:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amendment request: Race and intelligence
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't intend to edit R&I articles anymore if my topic ban is lifted. I'm requesting that it be lifted because I want to go back to being totally uninvolved in R&I, the way I had been for a year before I was sanctioned. When I was sanctioned in May 2012, my last edit that had anything to do with R&I was in May 2011. But my topic ban has often made me a focus of R&I related discussions even when I avoid them, which makes me too uncomfortable at Wikipedia to keep editing articles about books and movies the way I used to.
In the recent request by Cla68, AGK made a very insightful comment [295] about the current R&I remedies: "I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration)." AGK's point can be seen from the history of requests there have been about the same issues after the review: May 17June 10July 8July 25October 22November 10 I understand there was drama in the R&I topic before the review, but there wasn't so much of it that a new arbitration request was happening almost every month.
The goal of sanctions at Wikipedia is to prevent conflict, but the decision Roger Davies wrote in the review is having the opposite effect. I had already quit the R&I topic a year before I was sanctioned, so the only effect of my sanction was attracting more attention to me. The Devil's Advocate explained here how another of the bans I'm appealing also has created more drama, and he and Cla68 can speak for themselves about their own sanctions.
I still don't completely understand the basis for my topic ban, or why it needed to include an interaction ban with every other person who's edited R&I articles. My finding of fact says I was sanctioned because my involvement there was inspired by an off-wiki discussion, and both SilkTork [296] and Roger Davies [297] said the findings do not allege I was deliberately recruited. This needs to be pointed out because my finding of fact has often been misremembered as saying I was deliberately recruited, even though Arbcom was clear during the review they did not support this claim. SilkTork also mentioned here that it's not problematic for a person to become involved here because of an off-wiki discussion. Since my finding of fact does not allege I did anything against policy, I don't understand why I needed to be topic banned when I was no longer involved in the topic.
The reason Arbcom rejected Cla68's request seems to be that they thought a full case was needed, as mentioned by SilkTork [298] and Elen of the Roads. [299] I would like it best if Arbcom could just lift the sanctions, but if they would rather open a full case, that would be okay with me also.
Response to David Fuchs: the reason I can't just ignore discussions about me is because I can still get sanctioned in discussions where I don't participate about articles I don't edit. That happened to me in the review. If Arbcom takes Elen of the Roads' suggestion to sanction the four parties I named here, the sanction against The Devil's Advocate will be another example, because TDA hasn't commented in this request. After situations like these, it would be very naive of me to think I can avoid being sanctioned under R&I just by staying away from the articles and discussions about them. As for how these sanctions can affect someone who doesn't edit the articles, look at the explanation TDA gave here.
There is one thing that's already been a danger if I don't participate in the discussions where I get brought up. Mathsci has misstated the reason I was sanctioned so many times that other editors (including some members of Arbcom) have sometimes forgotten what the real reason was. There's another new example of this in his comment below about "proxy-editing", which has no basis in any finding of fact, and was contradicted during the review by Roger Davies and SilkTork and also afterwards by Jclemens. [300] I expressed concern to SilkTork here that if I don't do anything to stop this, Mathsci's version of events could become a sort of unofficial amendment that Arbcom never endorsed. At the same time I also have to be very careful what I do, because as Mathsci points out I've sometimes been threatened with blocks for participating in these discussions. It's very difficult to know how to avoid both these dangers at once, but if my sanction could be lifted I wouldn't be in this situation anymore.
I don't care whether Arbcom lifts the sanction, or finds another solution. I just want this situation to change somehow. SilkTork's suggestion to include Mathsci in the interaction bans also could be a solution, but I didn't request that because I knew I couldn't request it without being reported at AE. -SightWatcher (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Cla68
I have never edited R & I, and I find my unilateral interaction ban incomprehensible. I would also find childish reactions to criticism, such as this one (I think I will label this the "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get my way" defense) from someone who may be of adult age equally incomprehensible if I hadn't had so many years of experience dealing with Wikipedia's disfunctional and immature administration. Do whatever you feel is best ArbCom. If you want to continue to facilitate the ongoing, personal, years-long feud between an obsessive, established Wikipedia editor and an obsessive, established banned editor, while allowing thin-skinned admins to squish us peon content editors who try to say something about it, be my guest. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I'm talking about. ArbCom, could you please put a stop to this nonsense? How many more times do you need to be hit in the face by it? Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Davies, of course SightWatcher is spending a lot of time trying to get the sanction lifted, because he likely feels that it is really unfair. I believe the rest of us unnecessarily santioned because we got in the way of the Mathsci steamroller feel the same way. Have you ever been unfairly sanctioned because you spoke up about something wrong that was going on, then got pounded by a misguided admin like Future Perfect at Sunrise or Timotheus Cannens have done here? It really sucks to feel that level of frustration. Good grief, Roger, stop contributing to the problem and do something about it. Please think like Newyorkbrad and get some empathy for everybody who is involved here. All the rest of you arbs, I will be filing an Arbcom request soon about Future Perfect's role in facilitating the obsessive BATTLE between these two editors at that core of this problem. It won't stop until you take the keys from the steamroller and put it in the garage. I'm not the one driving it. I'm the one standing in front of it trying to get it to stop, and I keep getting run over. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, if you all impose a sanction on Mathsci, please make sure it expressly covers his public interaction with suspected socks/IPs of this Captain Occam bloke. If Mathsci can only use private communication to alert you or other admins about problems with alleged harrassment from that banned user, then that should stop other editors from getting munched by Future Perfect or Timotheus Cannen when we raise warning flags about the BATTLE taking place in Wikipedia's public spaces. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NuclearWarfare, from just a quick glance here, are you sure you should be clerking this? You know, if the ArbCom decides to open a case based on my request about Future Perfect, you could be a party to it. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Leaped before I looked. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it finally dawned on me what Roger Davies meant by "others are being trolled here." I wasn't trying to provoke a reaction from Mathsci with my comment above. I was restating the problem as I see it, which is that there is an ongoing, three-year battle in Wikipedia between two editors, one of whom is banned, that has been facilitated by poor decision-making by several admins, and which has resulted in arbitrary and unnecessary sanctions for editors who have tried to say something about it. I believe the evidence supports this problem statement, especially supported by the events of the last couple of days. Cla68 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrators, could you please consider banning Future Perfect at Sunrise from the topic area and from using administrative actions, including participation in AE, in any way related to Mathsci? If you do so here, it will save me or someone else from having to file an ArbCom case request in the immediate future. If you need more evidence of his lack of objectivity besides his telling you all "F-you" over this a few weeks ago, then I'm fine with filing a case request. You may remember that Future Perfect at Sunrise has previously been desysopped. Based on his strong personal feelings on this topic area and towards Mathsci, it would likely save you all future work and drama if you removed him from the situation now. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you were to ban Mathsci from public comments on-wiki related to Captain Occam or any suspected socks/IPs of his, that also save the wiki a lot of drama in the future. Mathsci should still be able to notify administrators (except Future Perfect at Sunrise) by email if Occam wiki-hounds him in the future. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci, if you object to the lack of diffs, you should be joining me in advocating for the opening of a full case so this whole matter can be resolved. Here's a few just to get us started...there is some precedent to you objecting about something and then Future Perfect intervening and using his admin powers to take action on it. Here, you object to Loosmark's arbcom participation in Wikipedia, then Future Perfect steps in. Collect objected to your behavior related to Captain Occam this issue (I'm having a hard time keeping all the plyers straight), and Future Perfect warns him off. After you file a tendentious AE request on me, Future Perfect blocks me for electing to defend myself, then takes Mathsci's side in the AE discussion in which sanctions on Mathsci had been proposed, then quickly closes itdespite objections from at least one participant. Future Perfect's desysopping happened after multiple violations of WP's policies. He has a history of using admin actions after apparently choosing a side in a Wikipedia battle, whether it be Eastern Europe, or the ongoing feud between you and Captain Occam. Please, let's open a case and this entire issue examined and put to rest. SilkTork, if I remember right you found some evidence that supported what I and others have been alleging about this. Could you please speak up? Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, since it has been brought up a couple of times, when I told Future Perfect at Sunrise that he had "created this monster", I was referring to the situation not to Mathsci. A number of editors and admins have created the current situation in which if someone speaks up and objects to what is going on, they get slapped with a warning or sanction that is recorded in the Log of Sanctions, Blocks, and Bans for the case, even though many of them, like me, have likely never made a single edit to any of the R&I articles. This is the monster that Future Perfect has unapologetically helped create. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Case against Mathsci
First of all, I owe Johnuniq an apology, as my response to his challenge to produce evidence with diffs has gone taken almost week. Below I attempt to answer his challenge with some evidence showing why a case to examine Mathsci and his administrator enablers is warranted. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Outings
Mathsci has reportedly outed or revealed inappropriate personal information about other editors on four occasions.
1. 2006 This was presented in the 2010 case. Roger Davies removed the diff from the findings because of its sensitive nature. I don't know who it was that Mathsci outed.
2. August 2011. I'm told that in the edit summary, Mathsci revealed Mikemikev's real name along with a reportedly homophobic comment, "Stick to your boyfriend, and the sheep." Fred Bauder, who oversighted the edit, appears to have stated in August 2011 that the Committee was aware of what took place. Perhaps they can confirm if the information I have is true? If the information I have is not accurate, they need to say so so that I can strike this, as it is extremely pejorative about Mathsci and unfair if inaccurate.
3. December 2011. Jclemens warns Mathsci that similar behavior in the future may result in a long, if not indefnite, block or ban.
4. In spite of that warning, in April 2012, Mathsci again revealed inappropriate personal information about an editor, which necessitated oversighting of the edit. From what I understand, the edit linked a Wikipedia editor to an account in another Internet forum, where the editor had included personal information about him/herself. The editor's participation in that off-wiki forum had no relevance to the discussion at hand. Mathsci was not blocked for this edit, or even warned, as far as I know.
Wikihounding
Mathsci wikihouds and threatens editors with whom he has had disagreements. I present one example below, involving Miradre, who was an active editor until the end of November 2011, then edited as Acadēmica Orientālis from February until July 2012. The editor is not banned or blocked from Wikipedia. I will notify both accounts of this discussion. I'm not aware of this evidence having been introduced previously before ArbCom.
In July 2011, Miradre made some edits to the R&I articles that Mathsci apparently did not approve of, so Mathsci left a long, confrontational, and rather hostile warning on Miradre's talk page.
Mathsci then edit wars to restore that and other warnings to Miradre's user talk page after Miradre removes them: [301][302][303]. In that last edit, Mathsci threatens Miradre with a community ban in the edit summary.
Mathsci also threatened Miradre with community bans on two other occasions: [304][305]. In the 2010 R&I case, a formal finding had been made that Mathsci "routinely threatens other editors with blocks". Apparently, he still does.
Miradre was topic banned from R&I. Mathsci, however, followed Miradre to other topic areas. He revert-warred or campaigned against Miradre's edits to the article Academia, an article that Mathsci had not previously edited. [306][307][308][309]
Mathsci also opposed Miradre or messed with his/her edits at the article Public broadcasting, another article that Mathsci had not previously edited: [310][311][312]
Mathsci reverted Miradre at NPR, the only edit Mathsci ever made to that article [313]
Mathsci reverted Miradre four times at Groupthink, the only edits Mathsci ever made to that article: [317][318][319][320]
Mathsci accused Miradre of being a friend of another editor [321]. Somehow, Mathsci thought there was some kind of connection involving Sweden.
As far as I know, Miradre never said on-wiki that he/she lives in Sweden. Mathsci, however, confronts Miradre with it at least twice: [322][323]. That second diff could be interpreted as extremely insulting. If Miradre never revealed that he/she lives in Sweden, this could also be interpreted as an attempted outing and as meeting the definition of harrassment.
Later, Miradre asks Mathsci to respect his/her privacy. The following exchange then took place:
The case presented by Cla68 above demonstrates the adage that if fifty diffs and a wall of text are necessary to demonstrate a problem, there probably is not a significant problem. Arbitration asserts that conduct can be assessed without regard to circumstances, nevertheless, comments such as "Miradre made some edits to the R&I articles that Mathsci apparently did not approve of" distort reality because the matter was much bigger than what Mathsci approved of. I was partly involved and know that many good editors strongly opposed Miradre's edits as UNDUE POV pushing, and the user was topic banned for six months (at ANI), and they have not edited since being unable to promote the idea that "group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors" accounts for why some groups (aka races) are more successful than others—the heart of the R&I POV pushing issue. The majority of Cla68's links attempt to establish that Mathsci has hounded Miradre, but, for example, this NPR diff where Mathsci removed some text with summary "rv undue content" is exactly what should occur at Wikipedia. What Cla68's links do establish is that Mathsci believes Miradre has made problematic edits which need to be checked—that is a fair assessment backed by the community as shown by the topic ban. Outing is not permitted, but I am unable to assess the revdeleted links, however Matchsci should not refer to other editors except by their user name (and a gratuitous mention of the full name of an arbitrator, however obvious, should not occur). If Mathsci violates CIVIL or HARASS, a case should be made at a suitable noticeboard before throwing mud on an arbitration page. The quote starting "group differences" is from this edit; see my comment dated 10:45, 23 February 2012 on the talk page for some background (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilawyering
In a statement initially posted here (but moved to talk), Cla68 is resorting to standard debating techniques, presumably to avoid having to substantiate their case against Mathsci, or to discuss whether they are in fact proxying for a banned user. Every lawyer knows that when a judge has exposed the weakness of their case, a useful response is to provoke the judge, hoping to elicit a response that would assist with an appeal, or even cause the judge to recuse. That technique should not be rewarded here.
This amendment request was started by a user who has not edited the encyclopedia since February (with one minor exception in September). SightWatcher's only recent activity has been related to poking Mathsci, and even that ceased two weeks ago. This request should be closed now—if Mathsci does anything in the future to cause concern, an untainted editor can raise the matter.
If anybody falls for this bait (arbitrators, you're anybodies too) you're not being helpful in reducing disruption here. You're allowing yourself to be played.
It goes like this: when a decision's been made, and some user (puppets, much of the time but not not every time) pops the BigStinkbombs to unwind it all - it's not the user(s) targeted that are responsible for the "disruption" but the rest of us that chase and flap all about in these BigStinkbombs like moths to a flame.
Arbitration's ONLY function is to diagnose remedies when the "anybody can edit" needs umpires. Arbitrators are the umpires. Not that the umpire's call can never change, but it sure isn't the least bit constructive if the umpire's call can be changed for no other reason than because the injured player just won't stop making a nuisance of himself perpetually bellyaching about it. Professor marginalia (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Speaking as one of the maybe increasingly few editors who's genuinely grateful for the arbitration system no matter what decision it comes to because whatever decision in comes to, at least it's a decision, (a constructive step in and of itself), I have found this case immensely frustrating because it never ends. Decisions are too ambivalently expressed to be taken seriously as decisions! Decisions in this case have been treated not as "closing doors" but as opening new ones to argue the dispute again, and again. The problems exploding in R/I articles never really stemmed from Mathsci's "behavior". The initial R/I decision by arbcom may have lent more weight to the role of Mathsci's "attitude" than I agreed with, but by any measure since those supposed "behavior" issues have only arguably become even more "disruptive" after the won't-take-no-for-an-answer socks, trolls, and their apologist whoevers went off and re-litigated the same old issues, wikilawyered, continuing their crusade to circumvent what should have been resolved disputes through endless re-dispute, re-negotiated, re-thinked resolutions. That continued disruption is maybe half attributable to the "won't-take-no-for-an-answer" socks/trolls etc AND their apologists, who continue to offer EXCUSES for what's only more obvious today than it was when the initial R/I conflagrations were brought before the arbcom. The other half is a rag-tag, defacto coalition formed of those hedging or rethinking their own decisions, and those seeking to piggyback some of their own past and otherwise unrelated or meta-complaints about particular users. Mathsci's a rational human being, but he's not Mr. Unfailingly Polite Diplomat either. I don't know that any rational human being can be unfailingly polite, patient in the face of the infinitely crazy, "wont-take-no's", flowing in to comlain in this community, nor should they and thus -- here we are.
I really don't want to rehash the full R/I case because it's a waste of this community's time and an insult to its intelligence. I will say the R/I parties thus far sanctioned in the dispute are the most pathetically obvious agents of tricksy proxy/tag team/canvassed/sock editing that I've personally encountered on the wiki and whose sanctions are well founded and yet, still, doubts are raised here as if these "doubts" are a damaging case against Mathsci (and now Future Perfect)? Who are we kidding? This would have been a "well in hand" "dispute resolution" in anybody's hands if but for the zombie proxies and recent entrants/agents (and antics) seeking to piggy-back oldstanding personal grievances unto an over-arching, almost atmospheric "meta-level" dispute resolution. In my view the value of dispute resolution, and arbcom, is in putting to rest such noisy distractions. This nonsense noise by those bellyaching ad nauseum, in my view, certainly shouldn't be rewarded by arbcom - and hey, I know it's not an easy job, but deep down inside do any of you really see any long term value in rewarding those who won't quit bellyaching?
I know bureaucracies are clumsy as a rule, but can't we expect from arbcom reasons, opportunities, to shut down or shut out the distractions? The stupid stuff? Arbcom in this case has not only hedged and confused nearly every call, but now its flakiness is threatening to sabotage the admins who don their helmets and dirty their shoes enforcing sanctions in disputes just as you've expressly charged them to do. Arbcom's at the same time threatening to undermine much of the progress they themselves have achieved in this case. It's so perverse that while the evidence *against* those sanctioned has only grown over the years since-to the point that only the world's biggest idiots would continue to furnish "excuses" for them-opportunists will always be there to exploit opportunities, won't they? And, as exemplified in this particular case, whose responsibility is it then when the dispute resolution system rewards those gaming it? Professor marginalia (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So here's what I suggest:
Reject this amendment request ASAP. The gaming employed at R/I back in 2009-10 was the source of tremendous disruption; the disruption fell to arbcom in 2010; several of the users sanctioned by the 2010 arbcom decision have continued, waging even more disruption by proxy; SightWatcher played no small part in it himself; the crusade-by-proxy continues; SightWatcher desires to have his participation (and others) be blacked out from the history of this case whenever Mathsci or anybody else attempts to show parallels or evidence of "the pattern" when the new proxies need dealing with in DR (hindering, in other words, appropriately dealing with them); AND this request was not prompted by any further dispute or R/I deterioration since the last R/I go-round but because SightWatcher just doesn't like its outcome-not that one, nor any of the previous outcomes of the case. (That's why he came to R/I in the first place--rebellion over the R/I 2010 sanctions!) There's no demonstrable merit to this request.
Impose some kind of moratorium on requests to amend or appeal existing sanctions in R/I. The sanctions have improved the situation: mainspace disruptions have come way, way down; and socks and trolls have grown somewhat easier to detect, identify and deal with. So what's happening now is that the troublemakers' troublemaking efforts are "channeling" to DR pages, and ultimately here, which should render them considerably easier to deal with. But instead ARA (maybe because it's just so slow) is now something of a breeding ground where little nothings grow bigger and bigger, and metastasize, which is obviously counterproductive to reducing strife in wikipedia. None of the sanctions issued so far in R/I were so beyond the pale as to justify the chaos these incessant appeals leave in their wake.
Please, please, please do whatever you can to Stop Sending Mixed Messages! At least in this case, R/I, "hints", "suggestions", "urgings" - they're counterproductive. Opponents are clinging to these hints and bits to reinforce their positions rather than relax them. And the mixed messages are also now complicating/implicating AE over enforcement of the sanctions you've imposed (potentially disastrous fallout, as I see it). I'm not suggesting anybody, certainly not arbcom, is to be "blamed" that their messages haven't connected. I'm simply trying to describe how, in this case, those kinds of messages too often get "heard" and lead to further disruption. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Heim
Risker, an entire case on one block, really? I was not under the impression AE required a consensus to impose a block or sanction; that rather, it was meant to be discretionary and require consensus to overturn. I wasn't a fan of the speed on the trigger, either, but a case would be really, really overkill and would undermine the discretionary nature of sanctions. Heimstern Läufer(talk)14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Fut.Perf.
@Risker: The opinions about the present block of Cla68 are currently pretty evenly divided on AE. I have made it clear that I don't consider it an "enforcement" block in the strict sense, i.e. I'm not squatting on its non-overturnability. As far as I am concerned, I will lift that block as soon as I am satisfied that it's no longer needed, and I've posted one proposal at AE [339] about an outcome that would allow me to do so. If somebody else wishes to overturn it, they can certainly do so. That's what we have block reviews for. But then they should take the responsibility for it themselves and should not expect me to do it for them. Fut.Perf.☼14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the AE thread has been closed with reminders to both Cla68 and Mathsci [340] (and I have lifted Cla's block accordingly). I hope this sorry sideline can now be put to rest and the committee can concentrate of what this request is nominally about. Fut.Perf.☼17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the new motions: These same proposals were voted on just one month ago, and rejected. When people elsewhere on this project keep re-proposing the same rejected ideas over and over again to wear down their opposition, e.g. on AfD, their heads typically make contact with aquatic vertebrates rather quickly. Since when is "keep reproposing the same thing until you get your way" an acceptable strategy for arbitrators? Fut.Perf.☼19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: You say that this is where "Arbcom comes in", and that something needs to be done to stop encouraging "more ArbCom and ANI postings". Don't you see how self-contradictory that is? There is in fact a simple way for everyone out of this situation: everybody simply shut up about it. None of the recent confrontations has had anything to do with the content disputes about R&I; it's all been on a self-serving, self-perpetuating meta-meta-level. This problem will go away the moment everybody just stops talking about it – and that includes not just Mathsci and his sundry opponents, but also you arbitrators. Arbcom has become part of the problem here rather than the solution. Arbcom is not solving this issue; it is only providing it with a stage again and again and fuelling it on and on. Fut.Perf.☼14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Enric Naval
WP:AE has proposed a solution. Can you let the AE admins solve this? Arbcom is supposed to intervene when the community can't handle the issues, it's not supposed to shortcircuit AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The terms of SightWatcher's extended topic ban preclude him from making any request on behalf of others. He can make an appeal on his own behalf, but making requests for TrevelyanL85A2 (now AE-banned) or for Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate is not permitted. SightWatcher was advised by SilkTork in May to try to contribute outside project space.[341] At the end of June, EdJohnston spelt out that a request discussing TreveyanL85A2 was inadvisable;[342] at the same time MBisanz warned him that he would be blocked for one month if he attempted to make such a request.[343] If SightWatcher wishes to edit completely outside R&I with a different username, he can probably arrange that privately and discreetly with the arbitration committee.
Apart from monitoring sockpuppetry by Mikemikev (my userpage is protected because he made fun of my illness), I have not had any active involvement in project or article space related to WP:ARBR&I. Periodically there have been attempts to misuse arbitration procedures by a small group of editors, made up of the DeviantArt group of editors, some of whom are now site-banned, and their facilitators/sympathizers. I was a catalyst in bringing to light coordinated editing within the DeviantArt group, including proxy-editing and most recently sockpuppetry. Almost all of the arbcom procedures in 2012, although nominally for a different purpose, have been diverted into some attempt to "write me out of the equation" as Roger Davies has put it.
Each request after a certain stage degenerates into free-for-all criticisms of me which contradict previous arbcom findings and remedies (the original 2010 arbcom case, its amendment later that year (when sanctions on me were lifted after a four months) and the subsequently tightly framed review in March-May 2012). In this request SightWatcher has made no mention of me, but, as a named party, Cla68 took the opportunity almost immediately to divert the case in my direction. He has used this page and WP:AE as a place to make personal attacks, assuming some immunity in arbcom-related space. As Future Perfect at Sunrise carefully explained to him, it is possible to present arguments without undue personalization or insults. His attempted caricature of me here is not reflected in my editing history or the findings of the original report or review. The "battleground" word has been misused: originally phrased as applying to "ideological opponents", words dropped at my request, in the context used it referred almost exclusively to the DeviantArt editors.
So the post-review pattern is this: an arbcom request appears phrased in such a way that it might be related to me; an editor uses the opportunity to launch unreservedly into personal attacks on me, presuming immunity on arbcom-related pages; then I respond, or am asked to respond. That is my involvement at present with WP:ARBR&I. That is also how Cla68 has created interactions with me. We have participated in previous unrelated arbcom cases, eg MBLPs, and I believe he wished to use the review to criticize me for conduct unrelated to R&I.
The problem with any of the editing restrictions is that they are taken not to apply to arbcom-related pages. Roger wrote below that I was trolled, by which I assume he was referring to Cla68's first thinly veiled dig at me on this page. Later Cla68's gloves came off and he launched into a full-blown personal attack on me unsupported by diffs. He described me as "obsessive" and a "monster" out to destroy others—the Mathsci steamroller. As far as I am aware, that kind of conduct is not allowed anywhere on wikipedia, including arbcom-related space. Mathsci (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SightWatcher has now commented on me, with the usual objective of the DeviantArt campaign: to have some sanction imposed on me. That and his own reluctance to take responsibility for previous coordinated editing, despite the off-wiki and on-wiki evidence in the review, is not a good sign. Captain Occam was himself just as evasive about that collaboration in this exchange on WP:ANI with Shell Kinney on 17 December 2010.[344] The pattern of "arbcom request on R&I issue --> parties sneaking in criticisms & requests for sanctions on Mathsci --> comments by me" could be halted by some form of motion restricting arbcom requests (the first step in the cycle), as Elen of the Roads suggests. Unsurprisingly SightWatcher is wikilawyering to keep that loophole open. He is also continuing to comment on other users, in this case The Devil's Advocate. In spite of the advice of SilkTork, EdJohnston and MBisanz, SightWathcer made a conscious decision to include TrevelyanL85A2, Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate in his request. He is now complaining about the consequences of that. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold's motions
Beyond arbcom requests initiated by SightWatcher, Trevelyan85A2 or by others on their behalf, I have not interacted with these users or discussed them since the review closed anywhere on wikipedia, except in responses on arbcom-related pages. My own 2 requests to arbcom have just been to amend slightly the wording of the review and have concerned only myself. Of the mentioned parties, as Newyorkbrad has already pointed out, TrevelyanL85A2 will not be able to edit wikipedia in the forseeable future because he has an indefinite ban enforced at AE after violating his extended topic ban.
In the final vote for the PD in the review, the drafting arbitrator Roger Davies made this comment:[345]"I don't think it's in the best interests of the project for him to be prohibited from reporting DeviantArt recruitees at SPI and so on. If, in the reports, there's a connection to Ferahgo or Occam, Mathsci needs to be free, provided he stays within the rules, to mention it. I say this because the alleged steady recruitment of apparent DeviantArt friends to edit the R&I topic is probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen. Let's not forget that Occam and Ferahgo are DeviantArt alumni." That is exactly what happened with Zeromus1. The sockpuppetry issues with him were handled privately off-wiki with checkusers: firstly with Amalthea; and later twice with AGK when more on-wiki evidence was available.
I have not made any requests related to SightWatcher since the review, on-wiki or off-wiki.Almost nothing has changed since the review, except for sporadic periods of intense disruption from troll socks of a community-banned user. That user is wholly unrelated to WP:ARBR&I. On this page I mentioned three bits of advice or warnings SightWatcher received in May and June from SilkTork, EdJohnston and MBisanz (diffs were added at Future Perfect at Sunrise's request). In the absence of any interactions and SightWatcher's own very rare editing, almost all in project space, Hersfold's motions do not seem to address any problems of conduct that have actually occurred or have any vague likelihood of occurring in the future. Nothing has happened since the last set of motions, except for SightWatcher making this request on behalf of himself and three users whom he is not allowed to mention. The only possible consequence of the motions would be that sockpuppets like Zeromus1, who seriously disrupted the last request for an arbcom case, would go undetected. That would seem to run completely contrary to Roger Davies' reasoning above. Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hersfold writes, "if Mathsci were to stop editing R&I topics, ...". Since he was site-banned and community-banned, I have identified lots of sockpuppets and ipsocks of Mikemikev. That does not appear to be "editing R&I topics". I occasionally have to comment in arbcom-related space, as here, but again that it not "editing R&I topics". In the review the finding was that my reporting at SPI was quite accurate. Mikemikev accounts for almost all the sockpuppetry in R&I. Then there is the quite separate matter of Echigo mole. His socking, trolling and wikihounding have nothing to do with R&I. A question was asked about his attempted harassment of me in the review. His ways of socking keep changing but his edits are usually easy to identify. Most recently 6 open proxy socks of his were blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Reaper Eternal. I have participated here because I was mentioned by Cla698, in a negative way, when there was no need. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On his user talk page and here Cla68 has indicated or "mooted" that he might be requesting a new arbcom case involving FPaS [346] as well as "evidence [which] directly touches on an item that I'm not allowed to comment on on-wiki at the moment, except on ArbCom pages like AE". Until it is clear how Cla68 intends to proceed, it seems premature to pass or discuss any motions that involve his actions and other users' reactions. Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs, Sir Fozzie and Hersfold were inactive during the R&I review. My evidence and arbcom's findings in that review covered coordinated editing of R&I articles (to bypass topic bans) as well as coordinated editing on an RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji. That editing was not, as now, entirely restricted to interactions in arbcom space. If arbitrators are now proposing to modify the remedies, could they please confer with those who examined the evidence in detail, including the off-wiki evidence? Roger Davies was extremely careful and skillful in what evidence he elicited and used. As a result, very late in the day, there were findings and remedies on SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2. Despite being informed by the clerks, neither participated in the review. Consequently, following the review, some matters were left unresolved. As Roger put it, the issue of recruitment of friends is "probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen". If SightWatcher can have a fresh start under a new username, known only to arbcom, why not? Mistakes have been made and lessons learnt. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 has just made 2 outspoken suggestions concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise[347] and me. [348] These suggestions, one involving an WP:IBAN with Captain Occam, are extraordinary. No diffs, just unsubstantiated personal attacks. Cla68 mentions "wiki-hounding by Captain Occam". There has been no wikihounding by Captain Occam. By Echigo mole, yes. But these are two quite different people. There has been socking by Ferahgo/Occam (Zeromus1), handled in private. Cla68 also mentions: "Future Perfect at Sunrise's strong personal feelings ... towards Mathsci ..." Groan. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have I been trolled again? Cla68 has just given examples of the "evidence" he would present in the arbcom case he has in mind.[349] The first diff is taken from Loosmark's discussion page at ACE2010. Here's what actually happened: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Loosmark I objected to Loosmark's suitability as an arbcom candidate because of multiple previous EE sanctions. Within a few days he was blocked as a sockpuppeteer first by Avraham for a month and then indefinitely by Timotheus Canens. Yet Cla68 writes that I "objected to Loosmark's participation on wikipedia." How does "candidacy for arbcom" morph to "participation on wikipedia"? Mathsci (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second piece of Cla68's "evidence" refers to TrevelyanL85A2's unsuccessful appeal at WP:AE against MastCell's 1 month block, where Collect repeatedly intervened to take potshots at me, using the phrase "battleground", as he had done previously at WP:AN.[350] (Collect subsequently received a log warning for disruptive conduct[351] and has for the last six months respected that warning.) Cla68 writes, "Collect objected to your behavior related to Captain Occam", but Captain Occam was not mentioned at all by anybody. This type of systemetic misrepresentation is the basis of Cla68's repeated claims of an ongoing feud with a user who has been site-banned for over a year now. It is not possible for a wikipedian to be in dispute with a site-banned user. Yet Cla68 continues suggesting that impossible scenario. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 explained in the MfD in March on User:Cla68/threat charges that statements added to this "list" would shame those who had made them. The "threat charges" subpage was deleted as a result of the MfD and later speedy-deleted when Cla68 attempted to restore it elsewhere. He then placed it on his user page [352] and, after objections to that, on his user talk page. The list contained entries by Prioryman, Will Beback, Future Perfect at Sunrise and two entries by me, one originally added by a troll sock of a banned user. Several uninvolved participants at the MfD, in particular the proposer Bwilkins, wrote that the list, originally a joke, had become little more than a thinly disguised "shit-list". With hindsight that does seem to be the case. Related problems emerged at the same time during Cla68's unsuccessful arbcom request for amendment to have his WP:ARBCC topic ban partially lifted in March. Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Newyorkbrad
AE or community sanctions, particularly if minor, should preferably be appealed where they were imposed, not here. Arbcom requests are a last resort and immensely time-wasting and draining (R&I fatigue syndrome).
The arbitration committee can decide on a quick "rule of thumb" for when amendments, clarifications and most importantly new cases related to WP:ARBR&I are appropriate. The original case concerned content editing in topics related to WP:ARBR&I and conduct in the first half of 2010. The review concerned content editing in topics related to WP:ARBR&I and conduct from summer 2010 to the beginning of 2012. Discussing matters unrelated to content editing is probably the main factor which has allowed arbcom pages to degenerate into what often resembles the courtroom scene in Alice in Wonderland. Any new case, such as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence 3 (please, please, no!), should be directly related to content editing in WP:ARBR&I. Cla68's Race and intelligence 2 was completely divorced from issues of content editing in R&I topics and the same is even truer of Cla68's more recent proposal for a new case. It is without merit—another one of Cla68's bad jokes—and should be nipped in the bud.
If I had called Cla68 a "monster" created by an unnamed administrator or described him as "the Cla68 tank engine," folks like Sir Fozzie would have good reason to raise objections. I have not done so. Sir Fozzie is now just trying to recycle his first failed motion. That motion failed because of objections about micromanagement from administrators at AE, particularly Timotheus Canens. Nothing has changed except that Cla68 has been blocked for making personal attacks on me in arbcom-related space. Since voting in the election is over now, I can reveal that I privately asked Newyorkbrad and NuclearWarfare if there was a way to deal with Cla68's disruptive attacks on this page ("the Mathsci steamroller", etc). Apparently nothing could be done.
As Newyorkbrad has said, please could those supporting either motion point to any interactions with Cla68 or SightWatcher that have occurred recently outside arbcom space. The thinking behind the motions is apparently that no restriction applies within arbcom space. That is presumably why Cla68 has been allowed, even encouraged, to engage in personal attacks on this page despite his AE restriction. Their motions would not prevent comments in arbcom-related space, which is the only place they have ever happened.
If editors have been sanctioned at AE and are unhappy about their sanctions, they should appeal those sanctions at AE. It is gaming the system to play off AE administrators against arbitrators as Cla68 has done here. There is also no reason for other editors to make appeals on their behalf. SightWatcher's case is special. In matters concerning R&I, his topic ban precludes him from making appeals on behalf of other editors or suggesting sanctions on other editors. Appeals to lift indefinite topic bans at AE usually require some sign of normal editing in content space away from the topic; in normal circumstances, the same is presumably true of appeals to arbcom. Arbcom should give clear advice on future appeals by SightWatcher. I am surprised he did not consult arbcom privately, on arbcom-l, before making this request.
Trolling by Echigo mole is a red herring and seems to be under control at the moment.
Interaction bans with site-banned editors
Since a handful of arbitrators (Hersfold, David Fuchs, SirFozzie) are suggesting an interaction ban with a site-banned editor TrevelyanL85A2 and I cannot understand what they might mean by that or how it would be justified, I have raised the question with the community on WP:AN. Motions concerning interactions with site-banned editors are unprecedented. Such a motion, if it passed, would send out a mixed message, both confusing and unhelpful. It would have been simple enough just to close the request for amendment and, without a motion, declare a moratorium on future requests of this kind (except with the prior agreement of arbcom through arbcom-l). Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68 is editing here on behalf of Captain Occam
The new "evidence"[353][354][355] produced by Cla68 apparently comes from an external source. Cla68 writes, "I am told" when referrring to the diff concerning Mikemikev. His source is without doubt Captain Occam, since Captain Occam made a big issue of the edit summary[356][357][358][359][360][361][362] which was rev-delled quite rapidly, through requests to Fred Bauder, LHvU and arbcom-l. Mikemikev outed himself in his seventh edit to wikipedia. I requested my edit summary be deleted because it contained a bad joke (Mikemikev had socked with a friend during a birthday celebration). Captain Occam saw that edit summary in the brief period when it was visible. He discussed it in private email with 2 ex-arbitrators (FB and CM) and possibly in the evidence he presented in private during the review (Roger Davies will correct me if I am wrong). That evidence was rejected. The only significant thing here is that Cla68 could only know about any of this through private communication with Captain Occam, which beyond a shadow of a doubt has taken place. Cla68 has even supplied the oversighted edit summary with his own commentary. (Clerks, arbcom-l and oversight have been alerted.) It's all very well that he's using Captain Occam to help him in this way, but a motion was passed prohibiting editors acting as proxies for site-banned editors. That includes Captain Occam.
Captain Occam has become active recently on wikipediocracy. From what he has written there he appears to be the perpetrator of the poison pen letter that was sent to me on 15 October, two days after being discharged from the Heart Hospital in Marylebone and almost immediately after I had parenthetically mentioned the DeviantArt sockpuppet Zeromus1 on-wiki. That letter was immediately forwarded to arbcom-l. Hersfold requested the headers and Jclemens wrote a very kind and sympathetic response. Thinking user:Stanistani was trustworthy (Zoloft on WR/WO), I later sent him a copy of the letter by wiki-email with all the personal details left in (eg my telephone number in France, the postal code of the college in Cambridge where I was a fellow). That was passed on to user:EricBarbour and then to Captain Occam, who presumably was one of those who wrote it in the first place, since he had threatened to release similar personal details ("outing") on wikipediocracy. Cla68's other vocabulary here (including his unsupported claims of an ongoing feud with Captain Occam) are other indications of off-wiki collusion with Captain Occam. Cla68 is an administrator over on wikipediocracy, so the means of contacting or being contacted by Captain Occam are in place. The diffs that Cla68 has produced could come from no other source. It was an act of great foolishness of Cla68 to act in this way.
The first diff from 2006 (!) similarly is related to the deleted article Myron Evans which survives as the stub ECE theory. It was originally supplied by Ludwigs2 during WP:ARBR&I, perhaps also indirectly coming through Captain Occam. There was no outing since the person, Myron Evans' self-identified cyber-secretary, actually signed his initials in the messages on the talk page Talk:Myron Evans. (Administrators can view the talk page and its archives.) That issue was handled by arbitrators during the 2010 arbcom case, starting with an email to Carcharoth on 17 August 2010, so Cla68 had no reasonable justification for bringing it up again here. Perhaps this was also submitted privately in Captain Occam's evidence to Roger Davies. Other claimed cases of outing involve an edit by me followed by an edit by Ferahgo in the R&I review that were "vaped" by Roger Davies. I think these were mentioned in the 26 March evidence of Ferhago/Occam that was forwarded to me by Roger Davies and later discounted. As far as outing is concerned, Occam revealed his identity first on his user page and then more publicly by linking to a letter written under his real name to The Economist which he discussed on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ferahgo's RL name was on her user page until just before her ban. It is is still in the signatures on her uploaded images.
I think other rejected parts of Ferahgo & Occam's private submission concerned Miradre/Academica Orientalis, a user who participated in the review and in 2012 edited logged off from a series of IPs in Sweden. I was one of a large number of people who found Miradre's editing problematic. They were reported on numerous occasions at AE and on ANI. After a topic ban in R&I which almost became a community ban, AO reappeared after a long wikibreak to to insert undue content on evolutionary psychology into every conceivable article on wikipedia, in particular high profile articles like archaeology and anthropology. I was one of many to see the problem there. Professional anthropologists, like Slrubenstein and Maunus, could not have any meaningful dialogue with AO and were often driven to their wit's ends by AO's circular arguments. AO participated in the R&I review: many of their assertions there, in chorus with the troll sock Alessandra Napolitano, were contradicted by Roger Davies. AO's editing continued unabated until they started their current wikibreak in July 2012, following a community imposed topic ban. What relevance does Miradre/AO have to this request for amendment, apart from it being an idée fixe of Captain Occam? It was presumably part of the rejected evidence he and his girlfriend submitted privately during the R&I review. What in fact happened in the meantime? Exasperated by AO's editing, Maunus made a report at WP:ANI where, after a long discussion involving a large number of different editors, Academica Orientalis was topic banned by the community from all articles related to nature and nurture for 6 months starting in July.[363] That community topic ban contradicts completely what Cla68 has written and tried to suggest.
So apparently what Cla68 has reproduced on this page are Captain Occam's private notes in the DeviantArt campaign to "remove Mathsci from the equation". The diffs have all been shown to arbcom before, some in private. All they indicate here is that Cla68 has been caught "red-handed". Undoubtedly Captain Occam saw an opportunity too good to be missed and Cla68 happily acquiesced. It was a foolish idea to use this request for amendment as a springboard to relaunch Captain Occam's threadbare and tiresome campaign. Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Occam's offer to supply "evidence"
Captain Occam wrote this on wikipediocracy on 11 December:[364]
Well, looks like this situation's back at ArbCom again. I wonder if this time they're actually going to do something, instead of just closing their eyes and hoping the problem will go away.
There's something I asked in the other Mathsci thread, that I'd appreciate getting an answer to. As EricBarbour knows, I'm fairly knowledgeable about the history of R&I and Mathsci related disputes. Would it be of any value to the people here if I were to post some of the evidence I have about this as it relates to people other than Echigo Mole, or the other editors involved in the current request? The current discussion at ArbCom seems to be only looking at what's happened in the last couple months, and at the battle between Mathsci and Echigo Mole, but to someone who's familiar with the history of this situation there's a lot more that could be looked at. Just going with one example, I'm aware of four times Mathsci has outed other editors and had his posts suppressed by oversight, but only one of the four was directed at a banned user.
If something like this is better handled via PM, let me know and I won't talk about it in public anymore. But I'd rather not PM Cla68 out of the blue, when I don't even know whether he's interested in discussing this with me.
Hersfold writes that his motion is to discourage SPI reports. My SPI reports, encouraged by checkusers like Deskana, almost all concern trolling by Echigo mole and happen when he trolls. Most recently Echigo mole made edits connected with the following advanced mathematical articles created or substantially edited by me:
As Coroner's jury(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), Echigo mole inserted incorrect mathematical information in two places, left trolling comments on talk pages and then on WikiProject Mathematics. Deskana encouraged me to make a report at WP:SPI. He ran a checkuser, discovering several other possible socks, and Coroner's jury was blocked. These are the day-to-day sockpuppetry issues which I encounter. They have nothing to do with WP:ARBR&I, Cla68, SightWatcher or the AE-banned user TrevelyanL85A2. They are not dealt with in any way by Hersfold's motions, which create the precedent of an interaction ban with an indefinitely blocked user and micromanaging WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing things to play out endlessly in arbcom-space
Please could arbitrators shut down this discussion? The request for amendment has been refused and if necessary advice could be given placing a moratorium on requests of this kind in the near future. I have not made any such request recently. The FIVE failed requests that have been made were by:
Keystone Crow (June)
TrevelyanL85A2 (July)
The Devil's Advocate (July)
Cla68 (October)
SightWatcher (December)
Each time except the first, nuked on sight, I have had to respond in the relevant arbcom space. Each request has dragged on interminably when they could have been shut down immediately. The minority motions failed in November. Now the same minority, none of whom participated in the review, are trying to modify the remedies of that review and incorporate their failed November motion. As Newyorkbrad has commented, none of them have pointed to any explicit problematic behaviour that would justify their remedies. From Newyorkbrad's comments here, no arbitrators have yet figured out a sensible way to halt the cycle of requests. Wikipedians here have suggested quite sensibly a moratorium. Simply telling people to shut up and stop talking about stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with editing of articles in the R&I topic area. That would put an end to this exasperating series of untenable requests, which at the moment shows no sign of ending. Arbitrators can make it end by declaring a moratorium.
There is no problematic editing in R&I at the moment, so no need for any case. Sockpuppet issues are easily dealt with, either directly [365] or at WP:SPI.[366] Both motions involve TrevelyanL85A2 who, as two arbitrators have pointed out, is unlikely ever to be allowed to return to editing on wikipedia. That is one indication of how poorly the motions reflect anything that has happened on wikipedia or is likely to happen. As Newyorkbrad has written elsewhere on wikipedia, a whole group of (cyber-)friends all over the US are probably now splitting their sides with laughter at the way they have trolled portions of arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Could Cla68 please give straightforward replies to Roger Davies' two questions within the next few hours? Otherwise please could this request for amendment be archived promptly without further action? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Beyond My Ken
Mathsci is, once again, being played here, and it would be better if his reaction to being played wasn't quite so predictable, since it likely gives his harassers satisfaction when he reacts as he does. Nevertheless, he is, as usual, not the one at fault here, and I continue to believe that sanctioning him -- however superficially "fair" it may seem -- would be a gross injustice. However, something clearly needs to be done, so I would urge that Elen's position -- which is basically Silk Torx's position minus a sanction against Mathsci -- be seriously considered. If the people harassing Mathsci on Arb pages are forced to stop, Mathsci will have nothing to react to, and there will be peace on earth all around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Collect
My name was mentioned above as " where Collect repeatedly intervened to use the phrase "battleground"." which is quite unfortunately a pure fabrication. I made one single post where I used the word precisely twice at [367]. The word "repeatedly" in common English usually means "multiple times" and once !- multiple times no matter who is doing the counting. An editor then asserted " Collect on the other hand is just making assinine trolling edits here " and the like, which I rather think does show a problem. Again - I am only posting here because of an egregious attack on me made above, whose clear falsity is readily determinable by anyone actually reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive118#TrevelyanL85A2 And for those who do not read the posts - my suggestion there was that trouting was sufficient. Collect (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@all: That other editor has altered and refactored his commentas above, and included a "disruptive editing" comment about me to boot. I assert that when an editor who has been mentioned on any noticeboard comments in direct reaction to such comments, that accusing that editor of "dsruptive editing" is absurd ab initio. I further suggest that such editor has an inexplicable interest in my fairly innocuous comments placed in reaction to my name being introduced into conversations on topics in which I have zero interest. My prior comment was in response to the original content of the prior post here, and when such posts get altered, it is proper for me to point that fact out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas by involving-himself-again NE Ent
The restriction on MathSci's on-wiki filing of enforcement requests imposed at the AE closing is a good idea and will help.
The committee needs to assert the proper hierarchy here; you guys were the ones elected (and if we community types don't like it, we have only ourselves to blame). AE should exist to assist you, not agitate things by attacking the committee and its clerks. To that end:
Pass a motion making it clear AC pages are under the scope of ArbCom and its clerks and AE may not restrict editors from editing the AC pages.
Unfortunately, the criticism isn't entirely unwarranted; specifically this "request" is insane -- it's four requests glommed together. Ideally ArbCom clerks would be more active and responsive. (e.g. Be nice if someone would answer the phone). This case should have been split into four and three summarily dismissed as not involving the OP.
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: As this seems to have devolved into a pointless scuffle between Mathsci and Cla68, if ya'll can't quickly agree to do something, then quickly agree to do nothing -- declining the case removes the stage. Cla68 is ibanned from commenting about MathSci elsewhere, and MathSci is banned from initiating new actions. Problem solved. NE Ent02:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shoutouts
@RegentsPark Hopefully no one. That's the whole point. An ignored troll becomes a bored troll and bothers somebody else. NE Ent01:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by ErrantX
The core of this dispute that appears to remain is that Mathsci is unable to detach himself from the original, and new, criticisers. Mutual interaction bans are important for two reasons; first to stop the sort of nonsense we have been seeing and second to make absolutely clear to Mathsci that his behaviour is problematic too. One overriding impression I have gained from recent comments by him is that he has "won" this dispute - and as a result he appears to be gaming the system, where possible, to bring topic and interaction bans against others. He has continued disputes with at least some of these individuals off-wiki, which demonstrates a reluctance to drop the matter (after previous warnings r.e. battleground conduct).
As an totally uninvolved admin it was depressing to wander down this rabbit hole. My impression is that the original abitration findings failed to impress themselves on Mathsci and as such created this unfortunate situation. I really do think the committee needs to pass the mutual interaction bans to help wind down this matter. Failing that I am collecting evidence to request a full case some time in the new year where the committee will be able to review the whole sequence of events involving Arbitration Enforcement. --Errant(chat!)13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My presumption r.e. the outing (which is very serious) by Mathsci has been addressed by the committee vis. strong words with Mathsci. I'm not sure I agree with that approach (we are hardly so lenient to most other editors showing such horrendous lapses of judgement or homophobia) but affirmation that *some* action was taken would be useful. --Errant(chat!)10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by RegentsPark
I largely agree with Beyond My Ken above. Mathsci is not at fault here and sanctioning him would be unfair, and to some extent counter productive for the encyclopedia. It is easy to ask Mathsci to not 'feed the trolls', but the reality is that these socks are driven by an agenda and are unlikely to get bored and simply go away. And if we sanction Mathsci, then who's going to watch the trolls? --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Aprock
Agreeing largely with Johnuniq, Professor marginalia, Beyond My Ken, and RegentsPark. ArbCom is being played like a fiddle by proxies of banned users harassing Mathsci. That we have repeated disruptions related to editors in the topic area, but which don't relate to actual articles in the topic area only points to extensive gaming. aprock (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
Sorry, I've been busy with other matters and haven't followed the discussion the last couple days. I'm wondering if ArbCom should just open a case to examine the issues. In particular, I'm concerned with Future Perfect Sunrise's actions as admin. His block of Cla68 was obviously bad, and his premature closing of an RfE is questionable at best. I had completely forgotten about his big "FU" outburst at ArbCom until someone brought it up. To be honest, I'm not comfortable with Future Perfect working in AE. AE needs admins to make sound, rational decisions, not ones who inflame situations. AE covers multiple topic areas, so this issue more important than just R&I.
I'm less concerned with MathSci's WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. Perhaps they can tone it down a bit, but I get the feeling that this isn't going to end until they're removed from the situation.
Like I said, I haven't been following the discussion the last couple of days. I'm not sure what I missed, and I don't think I can catch up. Good luck, everyone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by TheRedPenOfDoom
The continued allowance of bureaucratic Wikilawyering to harass someone who has been incredibly diligent in helping to apply and enforce the decisions of the ArbCom is really sad. The fact that there is any support for holding Mathsci responsible for the disruption caused by trolls and those attempting to evade ArbCom sanctions and harass him for his efforts is even sadder. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom16:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that Mathsci has raised this yet again at enforcement as a result of this case request (and the resulting admin frustration with Mathsci as a result) makes me think that we missed an opportunity to head off more issues by making the interaction ban mutual last time in the motion that was proposed. I'm neutral, towards leaning oppose to modify the other issues here. SirFozzie (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted the unilateral block action taken by Future Perfect At Sunrise in the AE request based on this thread.. I think that this action will certainly be looked at (either in this request, or in the request for a full fledged case that is currently being mooted by Cla68). I would say FPaS's actions may not be strictly against consensus but solely on the basis that only a few folks had spoken, but I do note that FPaS's actions were unilateral and not in tune with those uninvolved administrators who had already commented on the AE request. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, folks. It seems that *none* of you is interested in editing in the area of R&I. It is also obvious to everyone that these continued requests for sanctions or variations in sanctions is doing absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and is becoming increasingly disruptive. Please bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee's mandate is to address disruption on Wikipedia, not providing due process or "fairness" to any individual editor(s). I'm thinking that we extend all topic and interaction bans in this area to indefinite, with the opportunity to appeal in six months, and that Mathsci be included in topic/interaction ban. Much as I understand that Mathsci is being trolled here, at this point his reactions to the trolling have become more disruptive to the encyclopedia than the trolling itself, and he clearly needs a break from this area. And Future Perfect at Sunrise, please lift your block on Cla68; I don't want to have to hear an entire case because you're being inflexible on a block that is clearly not supported by the consensus of admins on AE. Risker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of have to echo RIsker; what we have is a small-ish group of editors, none of whom seem to want to edit the R&I topic, and all of whom need to be kept away from each other. And at this point, that includes Mathsci; running to AE when we're already here was pretty much the definition of not helpful. I understand ou are getting trolled by a banned user, but every time this shows up I'm struck by how much battlefield conduct there is, and how much less of it there would be if the various parties would just act as if they had no need to comment on or to each other. Courcelles16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline: I don't see much merit in this request; Sightwatcher's Wikipedia activities now appear exclusively directed to protesting his ban. On the broader issues, it's probably not just Mathsci who's being trolled here. Roger Daviestalk21:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Games are being played here, and it is time this was stopped. I would support extending topic/interaction bans to Mathsci, and also adding a provision that nobody involved in these bans can appeal or raise the issue on Wikipedia, not on AE or through these ArbCom pages. All communications related to these bans, including notifications about infringements, would need to come direct to ArbCom, and to ArbCom only, by email. These public requests simply inflame matters. SilkTork✔Tea time00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Racepacket case has a model of interaction ban that could be useful here -- very broad, and pretty much a total cease and desist globally. Courcelles05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, comments on the initial request. SightWatcher, if you don't intend to edit R&I articles, I see no reason why you would need the topic ban lifted. You are not required to comment on any discussion related to R&I; while your name may be mentioned, you should be perfectly capable of ignoring them should you not wish to be involved. As to the rest of your request, you have no grounds from which to request the removal of other's sanctions; even if you did, the grounds on which you're requesting this are somewhat shaky. It seems as though the better approach would be to, as several other arbs have suggested, make the interaction bans mutual and in so doing prevent anyone involved from causing any problems in the area whatsoever, because they can't talk to one another. Would anyone care to post some motions to that effect? Hersfold(t/a/c)01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple issues at play here; if Cla follows through, a case regarding FPaS is one of them that isn't really at issue regarding the initial request. As pointed out by Hers, I don't see how someone who isn't editing R&I articles is affected by a ban from them, or how they could be roped into the surrounding drama willingly therein; SightWatcher, I'd be happy for clarification on that point. I'm thinking Silk's idea might have merit to lessening the drama on-wiki, although given how invested the participants in I'm not sure that wouldn't just migrate the same issues into another sphere for them to blow back to Wiki with less noise but the same smell. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)04:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline this request. While there are wider issues with this topic area, I don't think we need to open a case to examine them at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline request and would consider both a motion that none of the four named can request an alteration/lifting of the sanction for the next year, and a working practice to allow the clerks to remove requests made on behalf of a third party in this manner. I am very reluctant to consider anything that looks like a sanction for Mathsci, but would strongly recommend he avoids reporting any of this group onwiki at AE, as all it is doing is painting a target on his back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motions
Motion 1: Mutual interaction bans
1) In an effort to prevent further disruption of the Race & Intelligence topic area, all interaction bans implemented as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review are hereby amended to be mutual. Specifically, editors who actively contribute in the Race & Intelligence topic area are indefinitely prohibited from participating in any discussion about the conduct of SightWatcher (talk·contribs) and/or TrevelyanL85A2 (talk·contribs), except to participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions, as necessary and within reason, when and only if their own conduct has been mentioned. Violations of this restriction may be enforced by block as outlined in this section, however violators should be given sufficient warning prior to enforcement.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
I think the crux here is if there's any reason for the involved parties to be communicating, period. From what I've seen it usually is only a prelude to grievances on all sides, and so a mutual ban seems a good option to try and prevent this occurrence in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little has changed since we previously rejected this idea except that another request for a clarification or amendment was filed and has been declined. There is no evidence that outside these arbitration pages themselves, Mathsci has been commenting, problematically or otherwise, on the users named. Thus, while I can understand the thinking behind this motion, I don't see it as helpful or necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I think in general interaction bans should be mutual, we've only just voted on this. My term on the committee ends in a few days, and new arbs wil be joining shortly. In this context, I'd prefer to leave the decision to the new committee. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the broad nature of the interaction bans as passed in the review, this is the literal interpretation of "make the bans mutual" - however it may be a bit of overkill, and could catch some editors not involved in this mess completely unawares, hence that bit at the end about "sufficient warning". However, it would probably allay SightWatcher's concern - which I still don't really understand - that he could be sanctioned for something he's not doing. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2 is blocked indefinitely and won't be coming back anytime soon, so I don't follow why this motion would be needed as to him. SightWatcher, as Roger Davies has pointed out, hardly edits any more either; is there an example of a time when Mathsci commented about him, outside the arbitration pages themselves? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motion 2: Mathsci interaction ban
2) Mathsci (talk·contribs) is indefinitely banned from participating in any discussion about the conduct of SightWatcher (talk·contribs). Cla68 (talk·contribs), and/or TrevelyanL85A2 (talk·contribs), except to participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions, as necessary and within reason, when and only if their own conduct has been mentioned. Violations of this restriction may be enforced by block as outlined in this section.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
While it may not address all issues (I'd strongly advice Mathsci to back off of the sockpuppetry stuff; if you stop feeding the trolls, eventually they'll go away), this should help to reduce some of the drama in the area. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)15:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given my term on the committee ends in a few days, and new arbs wil be joining shortly, I'd prefer to leave this decision to the new committee. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am deeply concerned about this motion and take this opportunity to provide detailed reasons for my opposition to it.
First, this motion does not flow from the original request, which makes its use procedurally questionable.
Second, the use of motions, per policy, are limited to matters which are "substantially undisputed", which is scarcely the case here. Arbitrators are not only unable to agree precisely what the root problem is but also who, if anyone, is responsible for creating the problem. We cannot craft a solution without consensus as to the problem.
Third, a similar motion failed a few weeks ago. Nothing has happened between then and now to justify overturning our October decision. There is no evidence that justifies the imposition of an interaction ban. Those already supporting should seriously consider whether it is right to endorse double jeopardy.
Fourth, during the currency of this amendment, WP:AE swiftly and efficiently put measures in place that will in all likelihood reduce ongoing problems, rendering this motion redundant.
Fifth, because of the grossly inappropriate latitude given to parties, this amendment request has as predicted become a vehicle for mudslinging, coatracking and personal attacks.
Sixth, I am dismayed that we are providing a platform to interaction-banned editors who are closely associated with site-banned editors. What's more, they are seemingly advancing identical arguments to those made by the site-banned people. These arguments have already been rejected on numerous occasions both by the committee and by the AE admins.
Essentially with the same thinking as that in Roger's detailed rationale. Frankly, I thought we had learned our lesson from the last "gung-ho" motion that was initiated out of a clarification/amendment request; but in any event, I think both these motions are wholly unnecessary, and I would prefer we close this request without any action. (I am concerned that we will soon have to take remedial action in relation to this matter, but I do not think this is the right time to do so.) AGK[•]23:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved, and motions are perhaps not the appropriate way of gathering evidence and finding a solution - especially when the Committee is divided. If the community are concerned enough about the trolling of Mathsci, and about the impact the fall out from that is having, someone will no doubt put forward a case request in the new year. It may well be that those of us who are involved in arbitration are getting a distorted view of this, and we are seeing it as more disruptive than it is; it is up to the community to let us know how disruptive the matter actually is. SilkTork✔Tea time09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now thinking a case may be necessary as well. This does seem to be extending quite a good bit beyond what these motions could handle, and it's turning into a muddled mess. However, such a request may be better left until after new year's so we can have some fresher eyes looking at it. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator Comments
This is the sort of "mutual" I think most people were thinking of; where Mathsci can't discuss those two. Note that this can pass alongside motion 1; the way motion 1 is worded, if Mathsci were to stop editing R&I topics, he would technically no longer be under the interaction ban if motion 2 were not in force as well. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much of a waste when we're passing a motion anyway, and not including him makes it appear as though we're singling out SightWatcher for some reason. SirFozzie, do you mean Cla68 should not comment on SW/Trevelyan, or that Mathsci also shouldn't comment on Cla68? Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also wondering if it would be worthwhile to add an admonishment to "don't feed the trolls," but not sure. I don't believe it is appropriate to add a moratorium on appeals of these or related restrictions; it should be clear enough anyway that we're not willing to consider any for some time, particularly not from these grounds. Hersfoldnon-admin(t/a/c)16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is pretty well universal agreement at this point that Mathsci is inadvertently rewarding the banned users who have been harassing him, or perhaps others who are trollishly imitating the banned users, and that by this point he should have heeded the advice he has received from multiple parties not to react so predictably. It would clearly be better if Mathsci were to back away from dealing with them, except when essential (such as when there is trolling on a page Mathsci was already on, as opposed to his seeking it out elsewhere), and if someone else would take on the task for awhile. However, I remain reluctant to enforce this in the form of any kind of a motion, which would lead to its own set of arguments and rules-lawyering and which I know would be terribly demoralizing for Mathsci. Can't someone think of another way for everyone out of this situation, which has become repetitious and tedious for everyone, and a giant diversion from everyone's editing, whether about race and intelligence or anything else. This is one of those odd situations where, if I had to explain to a non-Wikipedian what issues come before the Arbitration Committee, I wouldn't even know how to begin explaining it. In my experience, when an on-wiki problem has become that abstruse, it means we have gotten too caught up in internal affairs and diverted from the mission of Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"too caught up in internal affairs and diverted from the mission of Wikipedia." Agree. And, I suppose, that's where ArbCom comes in. What we have, though, is a situation where people are broadly in agreement that there is a problem, but are sadly reluctant to do anything about it. While the Committee is in disharmony with itself, with other users, and with AE admins over if we should do anything and what we should do, the situation does not get better and encourages more ArbCom and ANI postings. I agree with the implication of " Can't someone think of another way for everyone out of this situation" that what we need is ideas and discussion, and the discussion should take place here, not on the ArbCom list, so that those who may be impacted by our decision, such as the participants and the ANI and AE admins, are given the opportunity to participate. SilkTork✔Tea time10:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Cla68: my comment regarding Mathsci's demoralization referred primarily to the fact that he has repeatedly been harassed by banned users and/or their imitators, and continues to be criticized (sometimes more justifiably than others) for his choices in how to respond to them—choices that he shouldn't be in the position of having to make in the first place. This is a pretty much separate question from how to handle the interaction bans. I understand that all the good-faith editors involved in this request have probably had their fill of the issues raised and would presumably rather be doing something else with their wikitime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Cla68: please clarify the following points for me:
Can you please explain why, given your interaction ban, you have made numerous comments about Mathsci both here and on the talk page that go far beyond the core issues of this amendment?
Can you please state whether you have or have not collaborated with banned users in preparing your comments for this page?
For the record: Elen of the Roads has indicated by e-mail that she intended to vote against both motions, and that she will do so when she is next online. Therefore, both motions fail (because it is arithmetically impossible for either to pass), and I have asked the clerks to archive the motion at their leisure. My colleague and I have also agreed that this entire clarification request may be archived, so I have asked the clerks to archive all of this section. AGK[•]01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Three users were given one-way interaction bans in October 2012: Zeromus1, The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. An instruction was later logged by Future Perfect at Sunrise(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) in December 2012 concerning the reporting by me of these users when I thought they might have violated their interaction ban. Zeromus1 was identified as sockpuppet of Ferahgo the Assassin and their name struck from the list of interaction bans. I am not under any arbcom restrictions at the moment. Sandstein has decided that the extended topic bans of Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher are also interaction bans. SightWatcher recently commented out of the blue on a noticeboard in connection with disruption being caused indirectly by the site-banned user Captain Occam. Sandstein is treating the instruction from Future Perfect at Sunrise as if it were an arbcom sanction and has declared unilaterally without having consulted any colleagues that he intends to block me for two weeks for reporting SightWatcher. Sandstein has not sought input from any other administrator and has ignored the fact that he has been told that the original disruption, caused by Captain Occam off-wiki, is being discussed by arbitrators.
I have never understood SightWatcher to be subject to a "one-way interaction ban". That is Sandstein's own interpretation. There was a lengthy but inconclusive discussion of interaction bans in the request for amendement by SightWatcher in December, when he asked for the topic bans of himself and TrevelyanL85A2 to be lifted, as well as the two iteraction bans.[374]Timotheus Canens(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) has now provided some clarification at WP:AE.[375] As an admin policing WPAE, he had originally formulated those instructions for me as applying only to the one-way interaction bans imposed on The Devil's Advocate and Cla68. That has been my understanding. In those circumstances Sandstein's interpretation is unorthodox (in fact Cla68 was the person who suggested the instruction might apply [376]). As a result I find myself placed unfairly in an impossible situation.
Sandstein has made a number of errors recently by policing WP:AE on his own. He has not waited for or sought input from other administrators. He wants a rapid turnover even in complex cases. In this case he is treating FPaS's instruction as if it were a heavy arbcom sanction. I have observed the instruction. When either of the two editors under interaction bans has appeared to violate their ban, I have consulted a trusted administrator, e.g. MastCell(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), by wiki-email. From memory, his last response was that although a post looked problematic, it was best ignored because its intent was trolling/baiting. It's fairly obvious that any such request would be made in private. No mechanism has been suggested for indicating whether any private request was made.
I have also recently been in contact with arbitrators (including AGK, Newyorkbrad, NuclearWarfare) about ongoing and related problems created by Captain Occam. Wer900 has made public part of an email from AGK. He claims that that email gave him permission to start an arbcom case centred on me on behalf of Captain Occam.[377] In his edit summary, Wer900 has accuses me of lying. On a previous posting on WP:ANI,[378] Wer900 wrote that I am "the largest purveyor of insinuations and half-truths" on wikipedia. SightWatcher's posting took place in this context.
I have in the past made AE reports about Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2. SightWatcher was reported because he made statements about the conduct of editors who have been active in R&I (Mathsci, Mors Martell, arbitrators), when his own conduct had not been under discussion.[379] Sandstein has decided unilaterally that SightWatcher is under an interaction ban with me. That is not the case. When Ferahgo the Assassin had her extended topic ban, we edited and interacted on the same pages Orson Scott Card and Talk:Orson Scott Card about how to find a neutral way of phrasing sentences in the last part of the lede. So there was no interaction ban. In my AE report I certainly made no mention of an "interaction ban". The ban was on making general comments about WP:ARBR&I. There have been three recent problematic accounts. I have been the main user to point out (in private) the problems with those account (Zeromus1, Akuri and Mors Martell). These have been a problem, e.g. Akuri's contributions to the Race and politics case and Zeromus1's contributions on arbcom pages.
It's unclear why Sandstein has chosen to interpret the extended topic ban as a one-way interaction ban. It's also unclear why, when problems have been pointed out, Sandstein has refused to seek input from other adminstrators, as is normally required. He has effectively treated the advice from Future Perfect at Sunrise as if it had been a heavy sanction handed out by arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Sandstein for requesting comments from all the other administrators involved in the December AE request where Timotheus Canens and Future Perfect at Sunrise formulated the instructions for me. Only Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate were under discussion there. The instructions have worked smoothly: it was a very efficient "are you being trolled?" check. In SightWatcher's case, where it is an extended topic ban instead of an interaction ban, there is the added problem that it's impossible to tell whether anything he writes in project space is by him or by one of the other members in his DeviantArt group. As Johnuniq writes, however, the "are you being trolled?" question still applies. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Seraphimblade and The ed17 to Sandstein's list of admins. ErrantX was trolled by Mors Martell in January about starting an arbcom case about me; and Sandstein was similarly trolled by Akuri in April.[380][381][382][383] All these socks probably come from the same drawer. Mathsci (talk) 10:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as banned users are concerned, A.K.Nole (Echigo mole) recanted on 24 May. And Mikemikev has at last found fulfilment on Metapedia. There was a slight glitch in July when he was accused of making pro-Zionist edits in their R&I article, but he got himself off the hook by linking to his postings on Stormfront. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on interaction bans The 22 Oct IBANs on The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 followed their responses to removal of Echigo mole posts and have no direct relation to ARBR&I. On 25 July TDA requested an amendment to the R&I review partly based on my removal of a notification of a fake RfAr of Keystone Crow on TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. After that arbcom passed a motion on removing posts in Sept 2012. An AE notification from the ipsock 80.237.226.76 was removed from Cla68's talk page on 19 Oct. The AE request concerned Zeromus1 (later blocked as a Ferahgo sock) and The Devil's Advocate. At AE Cla68 requested that I be blocked for removing the posting. The interaction bans were enacted at that point. The instructions were issued on Dec 5 2012 in a very short AE request following a personal attack by Cla68, for which he was independently blocked. SightWatcher was not mentioned in that request. I will comment on Captain Occam, proxy-editing and the extended topic ban of SightWatcher in private on arbcom-l. Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Johnuniq
My quick reading suggests Mathsci asserts the following:
SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from discussing R&I or the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic: ARBR&I: SightWatcher topic-banned.
SightWatcher commented at ANI (diff) and Mathsci thinks that breached the topic (not interaction) ban.
Mathsci initiated an AE request based on the above and some other issues I did not look at: AE: SightWatcher (permalink).
Sandstein intends to block Mathsci for what is considered a breach of a sanction stating that Mathsci must refrain from posting AE requests regarding interaction bans without certain prior agreement: sanction diff.
My suggestion would be to tell Sandstein that interpreting a topic ban as an interaction ban is not appropriate, particularly when Mathsci has been the editor who has probably done more than any other to protect the encyclopedia from the R&I POV pushing that occurred. Also, I think something needs to be done to make it clear to SightWatcher that no R&I topic or editor comments are permitted (with the standard exceptions). Finally, Mathsci must stop feeding the trolls, and perhaps the logged sanction should be extended to include just about any R&I-related report anywhere on Wikipedia (with the standard exceptions). The banned users will probably never go away, but others at the bad website will eventually tire of their moaning provided there is nothing new for them to moan about. However, the excitement associated with this current incident will allow the discussions at the bad website to bubble along for at least a year. The feedback cycle must be broken. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Sandstein
This pertains to a currently open enforcement request by Mathsci, WP:AE#SightWatcher. The question is whether Mathsci has, by making that request, violated a restriction imposed on Mathsci by other admins in 2012 directing 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". My initial impression is that it does because the wording of the topic ban applying to SightWatcher comprises elements of an interaction ban ("... from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic"). However, the wording of the restriction isn't very clear as to which bans it applies. I've asked for additional input by the admins who then participated in formulating the restriction.
Procedurally, should we wait on this clarification request to conclude before taking any enforcement action? It seems to me that seizing the Committee of what is in effect an appeal before any sanction has even been imposed is premature. Sandstein 06:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The motion to make the interaction bans mutual appears to me to be a reasonable reaction to the AE request at issue. I take it to mean that additional administrative action with respect to Mathsci is not required, but at the AE thread I've raised the question whether action with respect to Cla68 is needed because of their interaction ban violation. Additional arbitrator or administrator input at WP:AE would be welcome. Sandstein 11:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SightWatcher
I have a question for the arbitrators, especially Newyorkbrad. When Cla68 requested arbitration about this situation last December, you declined the request "in the hope and firm expectation that it will deescalate rapidly." [384] I think you should have known it was awfully naive to expect that. Other arbitrators such as SirFozzie and AGK had already pointed out that the current sanctions were a source of disruption, and there was no reason to assume that would change unless the sanctions were changed.
You say below that you want us all to stop paying attention to each other, but this is no different from what you and the other arbitrators said in December, which was not enough to change anything. December also is not the first time an arbitration gave these instructions and had it do nothing. Risker gave a similar instruction here in 2011, and that had no effect. SilkTork gave a warning about it a year later, and that had no effect either. [385] My question is, many years does the problem have to keep recurring before you accept it will not go away on its own? For most other intractable disputes, you understood they required your intervention much sooner than this.
There does not seem to be anything I can do to stop being a focus of Mathsci's attention, because he's kept focusing on me even when I avoided him for months or for a year. His comment about me that led to the current situation was made when I had avoided him for the past 9 months. In May 2012, he was attacking me on Arbcom pages when I had avoided him and the R&I topic since May 2011, and he gloated here about how his doing this caused me to be sanctioned. My experience has taught me that if I ignore him bringing me up I might be sanctioned when I'm not paying attention, but also that in the long term there's no way to make him stop. If staying away from him and his articles could make him stop, he would have stopped when I left him alone for a year, or more recently when I left him alone for nine months.
If you think your "enough" comment will change any of this in the long term, please try to remember how similar it is to what you, Risker and SilkTork said in the past that had no lasting effect. And if you want something to change, please don't just keep doing the same thing you've been doing for the past two years, while expecting it to have a different result this time from every other time. -SightWatcher (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Cla68
Could someone please either remove the one-way interaction ban I and other active editors have with Mathsci, or else make it two-way so that things will be fair and even? Otherwise, this nonsense will never end except with an ArbCom case. I don't know if Mathsci will ever give up his campaign against two or three banned editors, while he drags in as many other editors and admins as he can, until it's made clear to him that there are actual consequences for his actions. If you will get him to let it go, then this recurring problem will probably go away. Cla68 (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other user}
Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Enough.
This entire situation is degenerating into self-parody. I have studied the AE thread below, and frankly I find the procedural discussion of the history of the interaction bans to be nearly incomprehensible. And I am not asking anyone to help me unravel it, either; I don't see that inquiry as being productive in the least.
For a long time, the race-and-intelligence articles were plagued, and Mathsci was being harassed, by one or more banned users (not involved in this thread). Mathsci correctly brought the problem to various people's attention, and it was addressed. While I don't say the problem is solved, and it could flare up again at any time, I think it's fair to say it has been substantially reduced.
Separately, there is the discussion concerning Mathsci at Wikipediocracy. Much of it too is nasty, but the nastiest parts have not overtly spilled onto Wikipedia recently, and I hope they won't.
There has been a good deal of discussion of whether Wer900 or someone else might file an arbitration case on behalf of Captain Occam. I welcome Wer900's statement that he has no intention of filing such a case. I hope no one else does either; I can speak only for myself, but I would have no interest in accepting such a case.
At this point, I see no reason for Wer900 or Sightwatcher to be mentioning Mathsci on-wiki, and I equally see no reason for Mathsci to be mentioning Wer900 or Sightwatcher.
As a procedural matter, Sandstein is quite correct that an editor shouldn't ordinarily be allowed to open a thread here seeking to preempt a pending sanction that is under discussion against him. (Sandstein is also correct that the tone of much of the ANI discussion is awful.) Nonetheless, I will offer what again is my own personal observation only, which is that I would prefer not to see any editors blocked in this situation, but even more than that, I would prefer not to see any more of the situation itself. Everyone mentioned here is very, very strongly urged to either sign off for awhile or to go edit something productive.
I agree with Brad's sentiment, but, since just saying "enough" hasn't brought about much improvement so far, I'd say it's high time we turned all one-way IBANs into reciprocal ones. SalvioLet's talk about it!11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This ongoing wikidrama is an enormous distraction to the project's volunteers. I will support making these interaction bans two-way, and will propose a motion to that end. AGK[•]14:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Motion: Mathsci interaction bans (Race and intelligence)
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
In May 2012 (during the Race and intelligence review), the committee prohibited SightWatcher (talk·contribs) from "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic" – and therefore from discussing Mathsci's conduct. In October 2012, The Devil's Advocate (talk·contribs) and Cla68 (talk·contribs) were banned (by an administrator acting under discretionary sanctions) from interacting with Mathsci. In December 2012, Mathsci was prohibited (again under discretionary sanctions) by an arbitration enforcement administrator from requesting enforcement of these interaction bans without prior permission. The Arbitration Committee has decided to change these from one-way to two-way interaction bans. Accordingly, Mathsci (talk·contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from:
This motion should be enforced under the enforcement clauses of the Race and intelligence final decision.
Support
Proposed. The language for the SightWatcher provision is different because the other two provisions were imposed under AE, whereas that one was imposed as an arbitration remedy. AGK[•]14:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be less problematic for the project as a whole if interaction bans were always two-way. An interaction ban does not prevent productive work - it simply prevents users interacting with or complaining about each other. SilkTork✔Tea time21:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
On 17 September 2013, Mathsci was given an interaction ban between him and I. Soon after, Mathsci announced he was taking a break. The day he returned, he posted an image on his userpage and linked to two Wikipedia articles in the caption he placed with the image. The first wikilink is the name of my organization of employment. The second wikilink is to an article on the small community in which I reside. After it had been there for two days, someone brought it to my attention and I filed an ArbCom enforcement request.
It appears that during his Wikibreak, Mathsci investigated and found my organization of employment and place of residence, which he then posted on his userpage hoping that I would discover it. The person in the photo is not me, but does bear a resemblance to me. Although my real name is easily discoverable on the Internet, my employment and exact residence are not, as far as I am aware. Thus, I believe it would take some dedicated effort and time to find this information. I have offered to provide documentation to ArbCom showing that I do work for that small organization and reside at that location.
Anticipating this request yesterday, which concerns a now oversighted diff of a captioned thumbnail image on the fourth version of my userpage, I sent a preliminary communication to Roger Davies. Amongst other things it disclosed details of two short google searches, each on two terms. It was accompanied by copies of two emails to arbitrators. I requested that, if he thought it appropriate, he might forward these to arbcom-l, which he kindly did. I will post a detailed response to Cla68's statement here on or before Thursday October 10th. Sorry about the delay and thanks in advance for your patience. Mathsci (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the last statement I made to the arbitration committee, I mentioned that my main priority was to make an apology to Cla68 on this page; and that I expected a sanction. On Thursday I received a response from WTT asking about what kind of sanction I expected; and then almost at the same time a response from Roger Davies encouraging an apology by email. Almost immediately after Roger's email, I got an unexpected phone call telling me terrible news about a friend. That entirely changed any plans I had and occupied me for the rest of Thursday and the whole of Friday. Even while Roger was posting his motion, I received a long phone call from London about this; and then another from others In London while trying to compose this message. Regardless of the motion and these terrible events, some form of apology to Cla68 will happen. Even if Roger has changed his mind about an email apology, I probably will post a modified version of the message I sent to arbcom. I hope my statements about my temporary unavailability were not misread. Mathsci (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Below is a slightly edited copy of the message sent to the arbitration committee.
As I've written, before I deeply regret posting the image. It was not outing. I acknowledge now that, although unlikely to have been noticed by anybody on wikipedia, it was likely to have been examined and analysed in detail by members of wikipediocrarcy who have been following every edit by me and about me. One of those active on wikipediocracy would have made a connection and drawn it ro Cla68's attention. That appears to have been what happened.
Even in this convoluted form—a message sent from WP to WO—it was a form of veiled taunting or harassment. I am ashamed that I did it and I see that, even given the bizarre circumstances, it was very wrong to post it. The image contained a message for Cla68 that only he could interpret. The commentary on WO had misled me to think it reasonable to let Cla68 know that the unwelcome attention I was receiving there could work in both directions. It was a one-off misuse of Wikipedia which I fully acknowledge was a serious misuse of wikipedia and should never ever have happened.
It was out of character.
Even if I was under abnormal stress and being intensively trolled on WO, there was absolutely no excuse. I don't bear a grudge against Cla68, although there is some ancient history going back to Will Beback and before that to Abd and William M. Conolley. However, whatever the preceding events on wikipedia or elsewhere, I owe Cla68 a public apology.
As I have said in my first post to arbcom I expect to be sanctioned and fully understand the reasons why, even if there might be mitigating circumstances.
Yesterday, on October 9th, I decided to spend a soul-searching few hours looking at Cla68's first years on WP. I am full of admiration for what he accomplished: he used wikipedia to explore his hobby of military history. I also read about his wish to visit the Peace Park in Hiroshima. Reading that, I now feel ashamed that I posted that particular image, without very clear thoughts in my head. I can see now that, if for any reason it came to Cla68's attention, it would send a negative (unintended) signal.
I have previously explained the serendipitous way in which the image came to be discovered: it involved a private message in September to an arbitrator about a matter which was not pursued; and an idle google search on October 2nd lasting about a quarter of an hour after seeing a posting on WO. I decided on a whim to post it later on that day. It was an act performed in an unguarded moment without premeditation. My editing was in turmoil, being completely confused after the motion, and amid the ensuing trolling commentary on edits on WO. Whatever the circumstances of that one-off out-of-character edit, it was very wrong to do so and should never, ever have happened. I have often complained about bringing wikipediocracy ethics to wikipedia: in making that one edit I completely broke that rule and let myself down as well as the community on wikipedia.
I understand that even veiled and indirect attacks on others based on sleuthed personal information, even if incorrect, are absolutely forbidden on wikipedia.
I will in addition send a private apology to Cla68 further to the statement above, as Roger had suggested. A copy will probably be sent to arbcom. I have witnessed supposed disputes in the past on WP which have evaporated. That certainly applied in the case of Elonka, whom I later met with her father here in Aix-en-Provence. My computer account in France will terminate at the end of the year, after which I will be at a so-far unknown location. Mathsci (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent a message to Cla68, with a copy to Roger, which he may distribute to other arbitrators if he wishes. Even if this was sparked off by one single edit, sadly I have to agree with Carcharoth, Timotheus Canens and Newyorkbrad. In my email apology to Cla68, I wrote that I feel burnt out, physically and mentally. Mathsci (talk) 14:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Johnuniq
While superficially straightforward, this case raises some nasty tangles. I have no interest in what was on Mathsci's user page, and am happy for Arbcom to rule on whether it was (probably) an attack. However, if that ruling is made, I ask that Arbcom address whether off-Wikiedia provocation has occurred, and, if so, whether its extent should be regarded as a mitigating circumstance.
According to statements made by Demiurge1000 at AE (permalink), it is very likely that Cla68 has been participating in off-Wikipedia harassment of Mathsci for an extended period. Unfortunately, as well being one of Wikipedia's highly talented editors, Mathsci is also highly trollable. Those who have been attacking Mathsci literally for years at the bad site know his weakness—indeed, it is because he keeps responding that they maintain their interest.
I support the principle that Wikipedians should generally ignore off-site behavior, so X saying something bad about Y off-site does not excuse Y responding badly on Wikipedia. However, it would be particularly unhelpful for this case to reward the prolonged attacks at the bad site when they finally provoke a bad response. If Arbcom rules that an attack has occured, rather than a project ban, a final final warning should be issued—much like the undertaking that I think was eventually wrung from Cla68 regarding outing a certain editor unrelated to this case. Johnuniq (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SirFozzie
I understand that this involves non-public identifying information, but at the Enforcement request, I saw a statement that the edits were suppressed, as potentially outing. I think the Committee settled the interpretation of WP:OUTING in the TimidGuy Ban Appeal, where the intent was more judged rather then the accuracy of the outing information. Even if Mathsci has gotten the information wrong, the fact that he posted this information in an attempt to intimidate another editor, no matter what conflicts they've had before, requires a most strenuous response. SirFozzie (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by RegentsPark
Though the irony in this request is mind boggling, mathsci's actions are disappointing. The posted information is not really outing - since no independent user could have specifically connected it to cla68 - but it certainly does look like harassment with its "I know where you are" message. That is definitely inappropriate and I can see that it is going to be hard to get over that. But, it is also important to recognize that Mathsci is a valuable editor on Wikipedia who, to some extent, is responsible for the fact that our R&I articles are reasonably balanced and neutral. Doing a great balancing job in a contentious area that is rife with SPAs and POV pushers comes with a load of stress, all of which has been obvious and very visible in the case of Mathsci and now this stress is manifesting itself in a bad way. Along the lines of Johnuniq above, I hope mathsci can present arbs with a reasonable explanation for what caused him to use such an obvious form of harassment and I hope arbs can work their way through this mess in a way that doesn't lose us one of our more committed editors. There are, in this world, trees and there are forests - we should try not to lose sight of the latter.--regentspark (comment) 13:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Beyond My Ken
Like RegentsPark, I find Mathsci's actions very disappointing, and note that they require some strong sanction being placed on him, however, I do not believe that an indef ban would be, overall, beneficial to the project of building an unbiased encyclopedia. I urge the committee to find another sanction, as harsh as deemed necessary, which will allow us to retain Mathsci's considerable contributions. I believe that a significant mitigating factor here is the extended campaign of harassment that has been conducted against Mathsci for years by multiple editors, some now banned and some still editing, which included on several occasions disclosing Mathsci's own place of residence. That Mathsci has not been able to follow the advice of others to ignore the attacks against him is regrettable, but understandable: such advice is much easier to give then it is to follow, as any editor who has ever been harassed or attacked by another can attest to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Count Iblis
I agree with Beyond My Ken about imposing an indefinite ban being problematic here. I would suggest doing now what was done with Cla68 after he was indefinitely banned. In that case there were discussions between him and ArbCom to make sure that after being unblocked, Cla68 would stick to certain rules to make sure we would not see the same problems again. Similar discussions can be conducted with Mathsci right now. Count Iblis (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Thryduulf (re R&I)
In cases such as Betacommand 3 (regarding user:Δ) and Rich Farmbrough much was made of the need to have bright line rules, stepping beyond which would result in sanction. It seems to me that Mathsci has been given such bright-line rules, has been cautioned many times about the need to observe them, and explicitly warned that breaching them would lead to a ban.
Iff mathsci has broken those rules, then I can see no justification for not following the course of action (i.e. banning him) that he was warned would occur.
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Arbitrator views and discussion
Awaiting statement by Mathsci, but at the moment my view is as follows: this seems to be plain harassment of another long-term contributor, for which I am minded to consider an appropriate sanction on Mathsci – up to and including a project ban. Veiled harassment of this nature is utterly unacceptable. AGK[•]23:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both Cla68 and Mathsci have submitted e-mails on this matter, but am awaiting an on-wiki statement from Mathsci (and responses to various e-mails from both editors) before proceeding further with this. Statements from other editors are not likely to help; if made they should be kept brief. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concurring with the comments of my colleagues. Also noting that the Arbitration Committee has at this time declined Cla68's offer to share his personal non-public data. As both editors have submitted email statements and/or comments, and the matter does involve personal non-public information, I am hesitant to have a lot of public discussion on the exact nature of the content involved; non-party comment should limit itself to principles rather than the material that has been identified. Risker (talk) 23:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned, Mathsci's behaviour was reprehensible, and his side of the story has done nothing to convince me otherwise. I'm still awaiting further responses to emails before I make a final decision, but concur with my colleagues that statements from other parties should be kept brief and regarding the principles rather than the material. WormTT(talk) 07:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be entirely honest, Sir Fozzie, this is not a clear case of outing; Mathsci, basically, put a pic on his userpage linking to an organisation and to a small community. As it turns out, Cla lives in that community and works for that organisation, although Mathsci never linked those elements to him (basically, Cla was outed by his own public reaction – which was something I wanted to avoid and so I suppressed the diff on Mathsci's userpage containing the image and the caption). So, as I said, this is not really a case of outing, but rather of harassment ("I know where you live and who you work for") and no amount of off-wiki harassment should ever justify such an action. Wikipedia is not a place to settle scores. That said, I'm still waiting for Mathsci's reply before deciding what to do. SalvioLet's talk about it!09:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A non-involved admin could have blocked Mathsci for this incident, and would have been supported. However, given the circumstances and Mathsci's history, it is appropriate it has come to ArbCom to deal with. I think by now it is clear that if any user sleuths personal information on another user, and then uses that information in a private vendetta to harass, silence or intimidate the other user, they will be removed from the Wikipedia community, and will need to convince either the community or ArbCom that they can be trusted before being allowed back in. That the user doing the harassment is already under formal trust not to mention the other user on Wikipedia, let alone post something that indicates: I know where you live, and I know who your employers are, then we are dealing with a serious issue. The Committee are looking into the reason why Mathsci did what he did (was he provoked by Cla68 for example); however, I do believe Mathsci has been given guidance in the past not to respond to provocation, and especially not to take matters into his own hands. I don't see that ArbCom have any room for manoeuvre here; this is an indef ban. SilkTork✔Tea time13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Motion (Mathsci)
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
For posting inappropriate material relating to an editor with whom he is subject to an interaction restriction, Mathsci is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban not less than six months from the date this motion passes.
I've not seen anything that persuades me that this should be anything other than an indefinite site ban, indeed off-wiki communication has strengthened my resolve. My current preference is an initial 12 months restriction, but I will support 6. WormTT(talk) 08:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roger. The facts are not in dispute. A lot more could be said, but at this stage it seems it would be best (for his own good as well as that of others) if Mathsci took an enforced break from this Wikimedia project. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Back in September 2013, a motion was made to change certain one-way interaction bans into two-way ones. More relevantly, SightWatcher (who was also restricted in a similar way to TrevelyanL85A2) was used as a basis for the IBAN between SightWatcher and Mathsci. However, possibly because TrevelyanL85A2 had been blocked indef (concurrent with a 1-year AE block), no action was taken in regards to TrevelyanL85A2's situation.
Reply to WTT: I expected that some arbitrators may see that. However, Mathsci is eligible to appeal his ban (and has been eligible for a while), so this request - even though possibly pointless for the moment - merely brings what might have been omitted last September in line (although I do not know whether the clause would have passed anyway last September if it were included since TrevelyanL85A2 had not made his first unblock request until October). - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps14:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally in favour of 2-way interaction bans rather than 1-way, but I really don't see the point here. Mathsci is indefinitely blocked, that supersedes the IBan. If an when both parties are unblocked and show that the 1-way interaction ban isn't working, I'd consider changing it - but for now, I don't see the point. WormTT(talk) 14:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If and when Mathsci requests an unblock, we can discuss conditions of the unblock. Is there a reason this isn't premature/unnecessary until then? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Mathsci were ever to request the ban being lifted, this could certainly be considered as a condition for the ban being lifted (provided it is lifted, this is not a guarantee it would be). Until and unless Mathsci appeals to be unbanned, though, the point is moot. Right now, Mathsci may not edit at all. If that ever changes, lesser restrictions might serve some purpose. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amendment request: Race and intelligence (May 2016)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mathsci (talk·contribs) to be indefinitely prohibited from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of TrevelyanL85A2 (talk·contribs); this would in essence make it a two-way IBAN between the two editors. because of the wording of the TrevelyanL85A2 TBAN.
Statement by Penwhale
Previously I have filed an amendment request, now archived here, on the same topic. I was told that the issue would be revisited when Mathsci was under consideration to be unbanned/unblocked, and it might have been an oversight to not visit this issue.
Somethings to make it easier:
The linked remedy against TrevelyanL85A2 has an embedded one-way interaction ban within that remedy (TrevelyanL85A2 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... [emphasis added]).
The linked motion turned certain one-way interaction bans into two-way IBANs (and continues to be in effect when Mathsci is unbanned).
Previous request was basically turned down on the grounds that Mathsci was banned (at the time) and didn't need to be addressed.
@Mathsci: This request isn't meant to be an attack on your editing; rather, it was a concern (at the time) that a one-way IBAN isn't beneficial, and I note that some of IBANs involving you were converted into mutual IBANs. However, since arbitrators figured it didn't need to be addressed at the time (because you were banned and TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked), they must figured that they can revisit the issue at a later time. I am unsure whether they didn't know such a request existed back then, but I figure it needs to be visited nonetheless. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps07:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathsci: Hospital visits are never fun (especially ER visits). I don't know whether my well wishes would be taken at face value given the fact that I submitted this request, but I still wish you a speedy recovery, nonetheless. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps07:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a repeat of the above request by Penwhale, who has disclosed that he is a RL friend of TrevelyanL85A2. I don't quite understand the point of the request at this stage.
I will, however, take this opportunity to bring up a recent query from an arbitrator.
My site ban was unrelated to editing in the topic area of R&I. It rested on one edit to my user page. The site ban could have been appealed after six months. I waited for two and a half years.
Shortly after the unban, one of the arbitrators privately raised a query with me. Apparently during their discussions some of the arbitrators had a distant memory that my topic ban "by mutual consent", imposed in August 2010, had been lifted. That is correct. It happened at the initiative of arbitrators and was enacted by motion on 20 December 2010. I did not request it.
In March 2016, after a majority of arbitrators had voted to unban me, an intermediary from arbcom asked me if I would agree that a condition of the unban should be a topic ban appealable after 6 months. On arbcom-l I pointed out my voluntary withdrawal from the topic area since August 2010, mentioning the motion of December 2010. That information on the voluntary withdrawal from the topic area was adopted in the current phrasing of the unban but now with a topic ban in perpetuity. That was an odd thing to do.
What are my editing interests at present? A return to a long but incomplete article on baroque music; and the use of images from illuminated manuscripts to enhance articles on fifteenth century art and history.
I have just come out of hospital after an emergency. Here fresh on the doormat is Penwhale's rerun of his request from 2014. Pure bliss. Mathsci (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should address Newyorkbrad's comment. As a party to this request, I assume I'm allowed to comment here.
The reason ArbCom made the rest of the interaction bans mutual in September 2013 is because Mathsci kept pursuing his conflicts with other editors even when they were inactive or were no longer editing R&I articles. During the 2012 R&I review, he was doing that to me when I'd been offline for the past four months. SightWatcher described a similar experience in his statement here, and here are some examples that were directed at The Devil's Advocate: [386], [387], [388], and [389]. The last two diffs happened while TDA was under a one-way interaction ban with Mathsci.
Part of what happened is that individuals who had been in conflict with Mathsci on R&I articles were given one-way interaction bans with him, and then Mathsci followed these users to unrelated disputes and they weren't allowed to respond. When he did that to me, I objected to it, and the diffs of my complaint were reported at AE as violations of my interaction ban. [390]
I know that Mathsci hasn't tried to game my interaction ban with him in the month since he was unbanned, but the fact that he and I are no longer editing the R&I topic is not a reason to assume there's no danger of that. Most of the times he did this to me and other people before his ban, he and the other editors weren't editing R&I articles when these things happened. I had a lot of trouble dealing with this when it was directed at me, and my poor response to it led to me being blocked for two years. I'd like ArbCom to make sure a similar situation doesn't happen again. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 03:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question for ArbCom
I see the prevailing view is that there's no need to make my interaction ban mutual until and unless Mathsci provokes me again, and that ArbCom can deal with that when and if it happens. If that is ArbCom's decision, could the arbitrators please clarify what steps I should take if it becomes an issue again? Will I have to make an arbitration amendment request about it, and is that allowed under my interaction ban?
The 2012 ArbCom was very unclear about what steps they wanted me to take. When I asked on the ArbCom mailing list, I was told to raise the matter in public, and when I asked the same question in public here, no arbitrators replied. I want to make sure that if the issue arises again in the future, I'll have clear instructions on how to resolve it. TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Newyorkbrad
I appreciate Penwhale's attention to detail and good faith in raising this issue: sometimes it's best to anticipate a potential recurrence of problems and nip them in the bud. That being said, I think this is probably not one of those times. Mathsci has resumed editing, but he will not be editing about race and intelligence, the area in which he previously had negative interactions with TrevelyanL85A2. Meanwhile, TrevelyanL85A2 has a total of three edits within the past year, none of which relate to race and intelligence. Unless something changes, the odds that the two of them will come into conflict again are hopefully slight. Unless I have missed something, the better path might be to let these two editors try to forget about each other, rather than reviving the ill memories of the past on this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Johnuniq
TrevelyanL85A2's statement shows that the message may not have been received—the community is over R&I battles and anyone pursuing them or past participants will not be successful. TrevelyanL85A2 has made a total of ten edits in the last 21 months and should focus on Wikipedia's purpose rather than pursuit of some theoretical justice.
Per not bureaucracy it is not necessary for Arbcom to formally address the issue raised in this request. Swift action will follow if Mathsci ever pokes TrevelyanL85A2, and imposing an unnecessary formal sanction for a very productive editor would not help the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
I haven't had a chance to look in detail at this yet, but did want to say that I'm sorry to hear about your emergency, Mathsci, and glad to hear you're doing better. If you want to discuss other aspects of your editing restrictions, I suggest opening a new request. On the current topic, my first reaction is to agree with NYB that this isn't really a matter that needs urgent attention and can probably be settled by both parties just ignoring each other and going about their business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for us to do anything. Mathsci, I'm also sorry to hear about your emergency. It doesn't say indefinite, just "standard topic ban". You were told 6 months originally and in my opinion you can appeal then. Whether that is in your own best interests is up to you to decide. If you think that editing in that area puts pressure on you, wait a while to appeal. Doug Wellertalk17:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amendment request: Race and intelligence (September 2016)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I request that point #2 (the "editing restriction") be lifted.
Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
I’d like to request an amendment to #2 of my set of restrictions laid out by the Arbitration Committee in March of 2014. [391] These terms were deemed necessary in order to lift my site ban, which was enacted in May 2012. I agreed to these terms and my site ban was lifted around 2.5 years ago.
Point 2 in this set of restrictions prohibits me from editing outside the narrow range of topics defined as being “about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles.” I request that this prohibition be lifted and allow me to return editing a normal range of Wikipedia articles. Note that I am not asking to have any of my other restrictions lifted at this time, neither the others included in the appeal restrictions nor my 2010 topic ban.
During the time since my appeal, I have made numerous contributions to paleontology articles and have not been involved in any disputes or conflicts. Just recently I finished the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article, and hope to bring it up to GA status in due time. I’ve added numerous artworks and photographs to Commons. [392] However, my range of interests and abilities far exceeds paleontology and has expanded especially since my site ban over 4 years ago. I am now entering a PhD program in psychology this fall, I have started doing professional bird photography, and have published numerous writings on things like genetics, radiometric dating, and religion. My current restrictions prevent me from editing in any of these areas, even from adding my bird photographs to articles on modern birds. Further into the future I hope to finish the Mental chronometry article, which has remained half-finished since I was working on it six years ago (and is a topic I have now done actual research in).
I can say with confidence that allowing me to make content edits to Wikipedia writ large will not lead to any misbehavior and will only benefit the topics I know best. Note that my original site ban was enacted over WP:SHARE, but I have not shared an IP address with another editor since well before my ban was lifted.
Lastly, I request that user:Doug_Weller recuse from matters relating to the race and intelligence arbitration case, because of his involvement in disputes covered by that case before he became an arbitrator. Here are some examples of him participating in content disputes on the Race and intelligence article: [393][394][395][396] I can provide more examples upon request.
Re: @Doug Weller: & @Drmies: My site ban was an amendment to the R&I arbitration case, and I understand the suspension of the ban (and accompanying restrictions) to be amendments to the same case. So I was under the impression that what I’m asking Arbcom to modify is an aspect of the R&I case, even though it doesn't relate to the topic area itself. Regarding the recusal question, there is a more significant example I haven't mentioned here because it's best to not discuss it in public. May I raise the additional example on the Arbcom mailing list? Please bear in mind that I'm about to move, so I may not be able to contact the list for another few days. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by The Wordsmith
I haven't seen any issues regarding this editor, and from the brief check I gave they seem to be abiding by the restriction and editing in accordance with policies and guidelines. There is also the fact that this area is under Discretionary Sanctions, so loosening the ban is fairly low risk. In fact, it might even be a rare example of an Arbcom-banned editor returning to good standing (which we presumably want to happen more often). Given all of this, I see no reason to decline the amendment request. The WordsmithTalk to me18:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by EdJohnston (re Ferahgo)
This request is asking for Ferahgo's narrow topic restriction (to paleontology) be lifted but is not asking that her ban from race and intelligence be modified. The R&I ban seems to have been imposed under discretionary sanctions by User:NuclearWarfare in 2010. The committee's 2014 set of restrictions also wanted Ferahgo to refrain from initiating dispute resolution unless the committee's permission was obtained first. That provision must still be in effect. I recommend that a clerk review all the restrictions at the bottom of WP:ARBR&I and be sure that any obsolete provisions are struck out (regardless of what happens in the current request). For example, at the bottom of the case page, Ferahgo's site ban is still shown as being in effect. Whoever fixes the case page might also update Ferahgo's entry in WP:EDR as required. At this time I would not advise lifting Ferahgo's topic ban from race and intelligence. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by NuclearWarfare
I agree with EdJohnston in thinking that there is no reason to lift the Race and Intelligence topic ban. WP:SHARE was the listed justification for the topic ban, but there were certainly other problems with her editing at the time. As to whether the editing restriction should be removed, I would say go for it. NW(Talk)18:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SMcCandlish
A topical restriction to one particular topic, rather than from one is rather aberrant and seems detrimental and poorly conceived. It may well be that an editor does not do well in a particular area and should be fenced off from it and anything related to it, but the fact that an editor does particularly well in one area does not logically mean they can only do well in that area, when there are literally millions of topics available to work on, and the editor's only been a problem (quite a long time ago) in one of them that has little intersection with many of them. I agree with EdJohnston's more detailed notes. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
Assuming Ferahgo has abided by their restrictions and not caused additional disruption since the ban was lifted, I'm inclined to grant this. I'll wait a bit to allow the opportunity for other editors to comment before solidifying that vote. GorillaWarfare(talk)04:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with GW, and want to see other editors' input. I also want to note that I see no reason for Doug Weller to recuse themselves based on those diffs. Participating in content discussion (two or three years ago) doesn't automatically make one involved, but it's up to Doug. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting for more comments. I'm not recusing and I don't understand why it's even been mentioned by someone who isn't asking for anything related to R&I to be changed. Doug Wellertalk18:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2014 requirement that Ferahgo is restricted to "editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs and editing any talk or process pages reasonably and directly associated with improving the quality of those articles" is rescinded. The other restrictions that accompanied the unban remain in force.
The 2010 topic ban from the race and intelligence topic, originally issued under discretionary sanctions, remains in force and is adopted by the arbitration committee. This topic ban may be appealed via WP:ARCA.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amendment request: Race and intelligence (January 2017)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During my appeal last year, Doug Weller corresponded with me about my voluntary topic ban from this area. It had been in force since August 2010 and has been adhered to. All restrictions were removed in December 2010, on the initiative of Newyorkbrad, but my voluntary ban stayed in force. I have not edited in this area since July 2010. Since then, encouraged by the arbitration committee, I have helped administrators and checkusers on and off wiki with sockpuppetry in this topic area. That is still happening.
I would prefer to return to the position adopted in December 2010 if possible. The topic ban, which I was first asked about in an email from Courcelles, might give administrators the wrong impression about my editing history, i.e. that I have edited wikipedia with ideological prejudices. That seems to have happened once already.
I would therefore like the phrase "This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban" to be struck from the motion, thus returning to the status quo of my voluntary topic ban.
I am completely happy with the rest of the current phrasing, which was modified from the original email proposal. This request is independent of and does not concern any interaction bans. Mathsci (talk)
@Mkdw:: Thanks for replying. In answer to your query, I would be quite happy for all mention of a topic ban to be removed from the motion. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration committee formulated the original version of the "topic ban by mutual consent" in August 2010 (the original case). In November 2010 Newyorkbrad suggested here that my editing restrictions be lifted [397]. I immediately replied:[398] "Even if my name at any stage were formally removed from the list of those topic banned on this, I should make it clear that for my own sanity I would continue not to edit articles or their talk pages in this area." That is what I have informally called a "voluntary topic ban". Nobody asked me to do it. The "topic ban by mutual consent" was lifted on 17 December 2010.[399] As Kirill Lokshin correctly points out, the "topic ban by mutual consent" was enforceable during the period 24 August—17 December 2010 when it was in effect. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by BU Rob13
I'm quite confused about this distinction between a voluntary topic ban and a "standard" topic ban. One may voluntarily agree to an unblock condition, but once the unblock is made, that condition is no longer voluntary. This restriction should either remain unchanged or be lifted entirely. If this editor has been as helpful as he says he has been for this many years without issue, I'm inclined to support lifting the restriction entirely. ~ Rob13Talk08:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've had no movement on this for a while, but everyone who's commented so far seems to be fine with lifted the topic ban. It would be ideal to close this in that direction soon so as not to leave the editor hanging for longer than the two weeks they already have been. ~ Rob13Talk16:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Francis Schonken
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Modified_by_motion_(December_2010) reads: "Remedy 6 ("Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent") of the Race and Intelligence case is terminated, effective immediately." So if above Mathsci requests "That the topic ban imposed in April 2016 be replaced by the voluntary topic ban adopted in August/December 2010" (emphasis added) I'm not sure whether they intend to observe a (binding/voluntary) avoidance of the topic, or the December 2010 termination decision (which holds no commitment whatsoever to avoid the topic).
Mathsci's commitment to indefinite voluntary topic bans can be illustrated as follows: in August 2016 Mathsci committed to "As I also wrote in the request [i.e.: "At ANI I also voluntarily committed myself to ceasing editing 2016 Nice attack or its talk page indefinitely"], I will not edit the 2016 Nice attack article and its talk page". Mathsci resumed editing the 2016 Nice attack page and its talk page in November ([400], [401]). Their edits to the mainspace article and its talk page in November-December are entirely constructive and unproblematic afaics – only illustrating the "indefinite" timeframe being translated to less than four months (also without prejudice where and when Mathsci may have obtained permission to shorten the "indefinite" part of their voluntary avoidance of the topic).
The discussion of Mathsci's amendment request appears largely semantic thus far, if you ask me: translating it into a proposal free of such side-tracking semantics:
Rescind the
The unban has been granted on the condition that Mathsci continue to refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This is to be enforced as a standard topic ban.
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
@Mathsci: Is there any particular reason why you're asking for it to be changed to a "voluntary" topic ban as opposed to it having the ban lifted in its entirety? It seems counter-intuitive to me for the ban remain in place but changed to voluntary if you believe it's still required. Mkdwtalk06:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Mkdw's question above. What is the point of maintaining a voluntary topic ban when it cannot be enforced? I would think we would either leave the topic ban as is, or remove it entirely. If removed, you would naturally be free to avoid that area if you wished. GorillaWarfare(talk)01:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The original 2010 decision does not use the term "voluntary"; rather, the remedy we adopted was that "Mathsci has consented to a binding topic ban from race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" (emphasis mine). There's no reason why version of the topic ban would not have been fully enforceable under the standard enforcement provisions adopted in the case. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While it hasn't been perfectly smooth sailing since Mathsci was unbanned, none of the issues that have arisen had anything to do with this topic ban, so I'd just as soon get rid of it. Of course Mathsci can continue to ignore this topic to his heart's content afterwards. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to grant this request to have the topic ban removed in its entirety. I trust Mathsci would continue to use good judgement and avoid areas of their own free volition. Mkdwtalk07:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see my username mentioned twice in the filing party's request, but frankly I have forgotten the details of that discussion from more than six years ago, so if anyone has been waiting for me to chime in on this, please don't. I don't have a strong view on whether Mathsci's commitment to avoid this topic should continue to be formalized through a topic-ban or not, nor am I certain exactly how it matters, except perhaps symbolically. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Motion: Mathsci
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Mathsci(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarification request: Race and intelligence (April 2018)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was advised by a member of ArbCom to ask about this here, so I may as well give it a shot.
In a current AE thread, admins are reaching a consensus that I have violated my topic ban from articles related to race and intelligence by discussing them over e-mail, and by editing in the topic of human intelligence and psychometrics in general. The question of whether topic bans extend to e-mail is currently being discussed in a RFC, but I would like ArbCom to address the second question, regarding the exact scope of my topic ban. I've included user:Ferahgo_the_Assassin as a party because she is under a topic ban identical to mine, so whatever decision ArbCom makes about the scope of my topic ban presumably applies to the scope of hers also.
The edits I've made that are being considered topic ban violations are this edit to the Oliver James article, and my former participation in the psychometrics task force, where my involvement focused on making it possible to tag articles within this task force's scope, and also searching for other editors who might be interested in participating in the task force, as per user:Everymorning's suggestion here. The discretionary sanctions from the race and intelligence arbitration case are defined as covering "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". I had assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the discretionary sanctions, and that it therefore covered only articles about psychological traits in relation to race. Psychometrics (including in relation to genetics) is a far vaster field than the small subset of this research that deals with group differences, so this difference between the two possible interpretations of my topic ban is not trivial.
I recognize that whether these edits were within the scope of my topic ban or not, it was unwise for me to get involved in a topic so close to the area of my topic ban, or to engage in a behavior that looked similar to canvassing. For 14 of the 15 months since my site-ban was lifted, I've avoided editing anything related to human intelligence, but my attention was recently attracted back to that topic because of a discussion about it at Wikipediocracy, and also an article I recently was invited to write about the topic for an unrelated website. Regardless of the outcome of the AE thread, from now on I intend to avoid the topic of human intelligence and psychometrics entirely for as long as my topic ban remains in effect. However, I think it's important for ArbCom to clarify the scope of my topic ban for the purpose of that AE thread, because this affects the question of how harshly I deserve to be sanctioned there.
Does the scope of topic bans from the race and intelligence arbitration case apply to the same set of articles that are covered by discretionary sanctions (articles that discuss both race and psychological traits), or does it have a broader scope (race or psychological traits)? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
@Sandstein: My intention with this proposal isn't to evade the possibility of being sanctioned, and if you're concerned it might have that affect, I have a suggestion about how to make sure it doesn't. Based on the discussion thus far in the AE thread, I think it's clear that at a minimum, I'm going to receive a month-long arbitration enforcement block for having violated my topic ban by discussing R&I articles over e-mail. I would accept it for you to close the AE thread with a month-long block for me, as long as I'm able to continue participating in this clarification request via my user talk. If ArbCom determines that I've engaged in additional violations of my topic ban and that I deserve an indef block, the indef block would be a non-AE action, so it could be done after the AE thread has been closed.
I'm obviously reluctant to advocate a block for myself, but I'm proposing this because it's very important to me that others not assume bad faith about this request for clarification. Please let me know if you'd accept the solution I'm proposing. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus: As I said in response to your e-mail, that's what I'm intending to do after this issue is over with, the same as I was doing from the time when my ArbCom lifted my site-ban until a few weeks ago. But it's a bit difficult to be motivated for that at a time when I know that any edits I make are about to get cut short by a block, and possibly an indef one. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing: There is something I think it's very important to clarify here. Aside from my recent e-mail to Beyond my Ken, my contacting of other editors via e-mail has been specifically about the psychometrics task force, not about the race and intelligence topic. Influencing editors in the R&I topic via e-mail is something that I used to do, and I mentioned this to ArbCom when I appealed my ban to them in December 2016, but it isn't something I've been doing in the time since my ban was lifted. Aside from my e-mail to Beyond my Ken, I have only sent one other e-mail to a Wikipedia user in the past year that directly concerned the race and intelligence topic. It was an e-mail to Everymorning in which I made a general suggestion that he pay attention to that article, during a lengthy correspondence about the task force that was mostly unrelated to race and intelligence. That e-mail was sent directly to his e-mail address, not through the Wikipedia e-mail feature.
I'm willing to provide the e-mails that are coming under scrutiny here, so that you and other admins can see that what I'm saying about them is correct.
Now, I know that the psychometrics task force might possibly be covered by my topic ban also, so that e-mailing other users about that could be considered a topic ban violation, but this wasn't something that I had been aware of. You and the other AE admins are basing your decision on the assumption that I presently have a pattern of deliberately circumventing my topic ban with the e-mail function, and that isn't the case. I would like the AE decision about me to be based on the reality of the situation, and not based on an incorrect assumption. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The e-mails
@GoldenRing: Actually, since I could potentially be indeffed at any moment, I guess I'll go ahead and do what I was offering to do. Aside from Everymorning and Beyond my Ken, I have only e-mailed two Wikipedia users in in the past year in relation to anything related to human intelligence. One was my e-mail to Rvcx that he mentioned in the AE thread. It was sent directly to his e-mail address, not through the Wikipedia e-mail feature. The content of the e-mail was as follows:
Dear (name redacted),
I'm no longer banned from Wikipedia, and I'm helping a few other editors create a psychometrics task force in the psychology wikiproject to help improve Wikipedia's articles related to personality and intelligence. The task force is mostly set up at this point, so now we're contacting other people who might be interested in participating.
There isn't any specific article or editor I'm wanting you to pay attention to now; I just thought you might like to participate in that task force in general. Are you interested?
--(name redacted) / Captain Occam
The other e-mail that I sent was to user:BlackHades. This, too, was sent directly to his e-mail address, not through the Wikipedia e-mail feature.
Hi Blackhades,
Remember me? I'm wondering if you're still interested in editing Wikipedia. If you are, there's something going on there that I think you might like to participate in.
Just in case people are inclined to assume bad faith about what I meant, the "something going on" that I mentioned is the psychometrics task force. Like my e-mail to Rvcx, this e-mail did not discuss any of the articles from which I'm topic banned.
The reason I chose to send these messages via e-mail, instead of posting them on-wiki, was not because there was anything in them either of that I thought was worth hiding. It was because both editors had been inactive for a few years, and I thought that if I posted in their user talk they might not notice it.
This situation demonstrates one of the downsides of trying to enforce a topic ban over e-mail actions. Since none of you had actually seen the e-mails involved, it was easy for you to assume I was sending dozens of them and that they were a deliberate attempt to influence edits on articles from which I'm topic banned. I expect that even now that I've posted these, I'll most likely get indeffed anyway, but I hope other people reviewing this situation can recognize what was problematic about sanctioning me based on your assumptions about evidence that you weren't able to see. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
Statement by Sandstein
I am one of the admins who have commented on the currently open WP:AE thread in which the enforcement of the topic ban applying to Captain Occam has been requested. I am concerned that this clarification request is intended to be an attempt to preempt or delay action on the enforcement request, which the participating admins so far have determined is warranted. I would appreciate it if arbitrators could indicate whether the enforcement request can be acted upon without regard to this clarification request. Sandstein 09:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by EdChem
CO notes that the discretionary sanctions from the race and intelligence arbitration case are defined as covering "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed." However, I don't think the follow-on claim that he had assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the discretionary sanction is much of an excuse when the unban conditions were very clear:
The scope of his 2010 topic ban is modified from "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" to "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed".
and this was explicitly posted on his user talk page upon unbanning by Opabinia regalis. About 10 hours later, the notification posted onto his user talk page again by an ArbCom clerk, who then removed the duplication and uncollapsed OR's original post so that this is how his user talk page appeared. CO then archived the talk page and the notification is still present in archive 7 of his user talk page. Maybe CO forgot the terms of his unbanning. Maybe he did make an assumption of what the scope of his ban was. But, in either case, he received the notification – which was presumably also covered in off-wiki discussions of his site ban appeal with ArbCom – and if he truly believed that interfering even at the edges of the area of the case and topic ban was within the bounds of acceptable behaviour following his long site ban, then he deserves the sanction that must follow.
I have posted at AE on a subject related to the one Sandstein raises. If comments from BMK are to be believed, CO emailed to comment on edits in the R&I area, which certainly should be prohibited by the terms of his ban. If it is not covered by the letter of the rules, ArbCom should look at closing this hole in all of its topic bans. Even if it is not, however, the spirit of a topic ban after an ArbCom case and years of site banning must cover such actions. I think the following is appropriate:
If ArbCom wants to take this situation on, BMK should be approached to provide the email directly to ArbCom for evaluation.
ArbCom would then be in a position to decide whether the emails are sanctionable, and to also take on the diffs from the AE of alleged topic ban violation.
Under this approach, I recommend ArbCom calling up the situation for determination and closing the AE. ArbCom has the authority to apply a block of longer than a month, or craft another response that seems warranted (including modifying the scope of the topic ban, if necessary), or even re-instituting the site ban.
Alternatively, if ArbCom does not want to take over the situation, consideration should be given to closing the AE and moving to AN for a decision by the community. I agree with Sandstein that the authority of AE extends only to a block of one month, and I am not convinced that the options available at AE should be the only ones available. The community at AN could issue a ban, or impose another sanction, and a no consensus conclusion would not necessarily preclude an AE action from an administrator. The AE could be closed, for example, noting that a consensus of AE administrators is a one month block which is suspended for an AN discussion (allowing CO to participate) and that the block will be imposed at the end of the AN discussion unless the community reaches consensus to substitute some other action.
If a change of venue is considered, I wonder whether Captain Occam would express a view on it being taken to AN or taken over by ArbCom at ARCA or left at AE, if it were up to him to choose?
I think it is worth noting that BMK has said that the original email from Captain Occam was not in itself particularly offensive, except that it dealt largely with a topic from which CO is banned, but that at the same time other users have come forward on the AE request to report similar email experiences with OC. This is a pattern of attempting to influence the R&I topic through email lobbying.
Such emails are not, on my reading, currently covered by topic bans; but it is looking likely (see the current state of the RFC CO links above) that policy will be amended to explicitly include use of Wikipedia email in the scope of bans. At the very least, the committee should wait and see what the outcome of the RFC is; if it clarifies policy either way then there is nothing for arbcom to do here.
As for this incident, it is looking likely that the AE will close with Captain Occam being indeffed as a normal admin action for disruption / NOTHERE. If that is the outcome, there is a lot of ground to cover between there and an appeal to the committee. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by OID
The point of broad topic bans is to keep the editor away as far as possible from the topic. As it is clear Occam isnt interested in obeying the spirit of the ban from the topic, and you cannot monitor what he sends via the email this user feature, just disable his email access, reiterate the topic ban covers anything related to race & intelligence and let the AE action take its course. If he wants to pursue his R&I crusade offwiki, make it so he does it off-wiki. But he will keep doing it, as anyone with half a brain knew he was going to when he was unblocked. It really doesnt matter what restrictions you place, he will continute to try and further his agenda. All you are really doing is pushing the problem elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that by opening this ARCA, Captain Occam has given his tacit permission for the text of his first e-mail to me to be shared with the Committee if they decide to take this on. If I am correct in this assumption, I have no objection to this, and will forward it to the Commmittee in whatever way they desire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do have some questions which, if the Committee decides to deal with this Clarification, may or may not be pertinent: If Captain Occam didn't think that putting together a task force to patrol articles relating to psychometics wasn't a potential violation of his topic ban, and if the purpose of the task force was innocuous -- i.e. not to push a hereditarian POV, but simply to put articles into good order -- why was there a need to contact editors via e-mail? Why the secrecy? Why not simply post the invitation on their user talk pages? Was Captain Occam afraid that doing so would reveal that he was inviting only editors of a certain POV, or that a public invitation would attract the "wrong" kind of editor to the task force? Or was he concerned that such a public invitation would reveal that he was intending to delve into a subject matter very closely related to "race and intelligence", and that someone might raise questions about that, so he wanted to get the task force set up and running before that happened? Again, why the need for screcy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
Mildly, the full advice from a member of Arbcom (me) was that while you could post this request here, it would probably be better not to, and instead to go edit some of the five million other en-WP articles on totally unrelated topics like fish, or joinery, or medieval art. Still reckon that's good advice, this arca request notwithstanding. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: other views welcome, but I don't personally see a reason to delay the closing of the AE thread if it's otherwise time to do so. This arca can be resolved independently of the AE outcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Euryalus on both accounts, noting that if we make a clarification that makes clear the editor did not violate their topic ban, they can always appeal at AE noting the new information. As far as the substance of the request, it seems clear that this is a topic ban of "race and intelligence", meaning the article must contain information about both aspects to be included under the scope. It seems unlikely the Committee intended to separately topic ban the editor from both race and (separately) intelligence. ~ Rob13Talk13:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This request is moot as long as Captain Occam remains blocked. (I haven't reviewed the block.) If he is ever unblocked, he has indicated he will stay away from the areas at issue, which is a good idea, and so the request will still be moot. Under the circumstances I don't think we need to spend time on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarification request: Race and intelligence (May 2018)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
Note: I am making this request as per the recommendation I received from the Arbitration Committee Mailing List, after having contacted the list with this question. I will repost the relevant bits of the question I emailed them below, with personally identifying information redacted.
I was recently included as a party on a Clarification Request that was declined and closed without my participation. The clarification request concerned the scope of the Race and Intelligence topic ban, which also applies to me. (The current version of my editing restrictions can be found here) My understanding of my topic ban is that I am prohibited from editing articles related to "the race and intelligence topic, broadly construed".
What is covered under "broadly construed"? I am concerned about whether editing pages related to the "heritability of psychological traits” is considered to be a violation, or even the “psychometrics of intelligence” on its own. My understanding since my restrictions were given was that I was only prohibited from editing topics concerning both “race” and “intelligence”.
I should mention that my real-life circumstances have changed considerably since my restrictions were given. I'm now in my second year of the Ph.D program in behavior genetics at a prestigious university. My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence, which so far has been very well received by my peers. (I sent the mailing list a link to an award I’ve received for my research.) The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole.
It seems arbitrary to prohibit me from editing anything that has to do with the heritability of psychological traits, particularly when doing so would close off major potential improvements that I could bring to the encyclopedia to topics in my area of expertise. I am also currently finishing up a research project on mental chronometry that I plan to present at an upcoming conference, and was hoping that I could finally get around to making major improvements to the mental chronometry article with what I've learned over the course of this research and its background.
Can you please clarify the extent to which my topic ban covers the area in which I am developing professional expertise, and the rationale for which topics are covered?
@ Brad:
I did not think it was worth including & notifying anyone else, since this was intended just to be a request for clarification of what my own topic ban was intended to cover. But here is a brief history of my situation, if it’s helpful:
1. Original topic ban from R&I in October 2010, for violation of WP:SHARE policy, documented here.
2. This was followed by a 1-year site ban, in May 2012, for violation of WP:SHARE, documented here.
3. Suspension of this ban in March 2014 is documented further down, here. My request for appealing the site ban occurred via email, originally sent to the committee on March 6, 2014. In this appeal, I mention that Occam and I no longer share an IP address—and haven’t since (and still don’t).
4. My ban was lifted under the condition that in addition to the topic ban, I was restricted only to articles about “paleontology of birds and dinosaurs” and associated talk and process pages. I appealed this specific restriction in September 2016, and this was rescinded as documented here. Which leaves me under the original topic ban and the two-way interaction ban, as documented in the most recent link.
@ Euryalus:
Appealing my topic ban wasn't my intention in submitting this request, but if Arbcom thinks lifting the ban is the best solution, then I'm happy to have that considered. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Arbcom decides that my topic ban applies to articles about the heritability of intelligence in general, then I'd like to request for my topic ban to be lifted. I know there are plenty of other articles to work on, but I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic that I'm getting my Ph.D in. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Capitals00:
With all due respect, if people want to scrutinize my edits that are 8 years old, it might be good to look at the whole discussion in context before drawing a conclusion. That being said, I think it’s fair to say that my explanation for these edits is simply that they were 8 years ago. My current hope is only that I be permitted to improve articles like Polygenic score and Gene-environment correlation, which are directly related to my research. If you want to see how I can contribute to topics outside this subject, I invite you to look at Specimens of Archaeopteryx and (longer ago) The Origin of Birds (a GA). Grad school has (quite predictably and, I hope, understandably) limited my time and energy for reading on topics outside of my field.
I have no current plans to edit anything about Richard Lynn, his books or his research. Anything I do edit will be fully compliant with both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia policy, regardless of whether my topic ban is lifted or not. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new input, everyone. As a very busy grad student without much time to read outside of my research area anymore, I hope that "reasonably active" might be charitably interpreted if we revisit the question in half a year or so. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the clarification request, since Ferahgo the Assassin claims to now have some professional expertise on the subject of the "heritability of psychological traits", I personally see no problem with her editing in that subject area, very narrowly construed, as long as she doesn't touch on anything whatsoever regarding race, and assuming that her editing is based on citing suitable neutral reliable sources, and not on her own personal knowledge, which cannot be verified, or opinions, which are disallowed as WP:OR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On lifting the ban, I think that would be OK, as long as FtA was made aware that she was on a very short leash, and that the topic ban would be restored at the first sign of a problem in her editing. I think the question that would need to be answered is: in that circumstance (i.e. topic ban lifted, problematic editing, topic ban restored) would FtA's site ban be restored as well, considering the conditions under which the site ban was lifted? [403]Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Capitals00
I am not supporting that topic ban should be lifted because Ferahgo the Assassin has made just 400 edits on main articles since 2014 and I maintain that it doesn't matter how long ago the topic ban was imposed because I would like to see how FTA can really contribute in topics outside this subject.
I have removed a lot of WP:UNDUE content from Nations and intelligence dedicated to theories of Richard Lynn that are controversial and pseudoscientific. FTA's edits[404][405] related to Richard Lynn show that she probably thinks otherwise. I would like to hear some explanation of these edits and also how she will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever she will edit these articles. Capitals00 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferahgo the Assassin: You still haven't answered my question. I asked how you "will represent Richard Lynn or his researches whenever" you will edit any articles that are related to him. I am waiting for your reply. What is your firm opinion about Lynn and his researches? Tell me which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles. Capitals00 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferahgo the Assassin: Your answer to the question regarding Richard Lynn and his researches seems satisfactory. I had also asked that "which articles you would prefer to edit that are related to race and intelligence once your topic ban has been removed and how do you think you will improve those articles". Waiting for your reply. Capitals00 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I'm of the opinion that an editor's real-life academic qualifications (or lack thereof) are irrelevant here. But since Ferahgo presents hers as a central component of her request, I think they're worth discussing.
Ferahgo writes: My research specifically involves the heritability of intelligence... The vast majority of research in my field has nothing to do with race, and most researchers do not want to touch the topic with a ten-foot pole. The realist cynic in me can't help noticing that this formulation leaves out a key detail: Ferahgo, does your research touch on race as it intersects with intelligence? MastCellTalk23:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by RegentsPark
I'm not sure I like this. Not only because I'm not a big fan of "I have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic..." because that usually also comes with a unique agenda, but also because the sequence of events that I'm seeing here is disconcerting. Captain Occam returns to Wikipedia. Captain Occam edits in areas that are apparently intelligence related but not race related. Captain Occam gets indef blocked. Ferahgo the Assassin shows up requesting permission to edit in those very intelligence related areas that got the Captain indef blocked. Nope. Not an encouraging chain of events. --regentspark (comment) 08:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SMcCandlish (uninvolved)
I'm not going the theorize about history and connections, just observe that "heritability of intelligence" is clearly within the scope of the topic ban (not even "broadly construed" – the two subjects are inextricably tied). Perhaps a more narrow TB could be constructed that permitted HoI editing that isn't about humans. "Psychometrics of intelligence" in and of itself isn't within the broadly-construed scope, per se, but a tremendous amount of material relating to it is tied to efforts to prove or disprove racial/ethnic intelligence heritability ideas, so editing in that area will always be iffy for an editor under an R&I ban. It will probably frequently involve "skirting" or "testing the boundaries", and no such editor should be surprised if they end up sanctioned for crossing the line, which is ultimately going to be a matter of admin discretion. Given that admins are random people, the safe assumption is that PoI, like HoI, is implicitly within R&I except when it's entirely about non-human animals, like determining the relative intelligence levels of various dog breeds, or proving the tool-use and problem solving abilities of corvid birds. Even then, there is risk. E.g., overstating or understanding the heritability of intelligence in ways that do not match the scientific consensus in current, actually reliable sources, in a general article on intelligence heritability in mammals, can still trigger this TB, since it'll clearly be to advance or combat the "some human races are smarter than others" agenda in the long run.
Finally, Ferahgo the Assassin absolutely does not "have a unique ability to improve articles about the topic that I'm getting my Ph.D in". A PhD candidate is not an expert, but someone on the way to expertise, and when they get there, they'll find that there are many alleged experts with PhDs who have differing and contradictory views, and often non-PhDs who know as much as they do from practical application experience rather than academic hypothesizing, and who also have different stances. I think this speaks to why FtA was topic-banned in the first place. What FtA actually does have is a professionally-connected intense interest in editing in these articles and to project one particular viewpoint in them. Most of us have figured out by now that what we do for a living is generally not what we should write about at Wikipedia, for conflict-of-interest [in the broad sense] and lack-of-neutrality reasons. While a few editors can pull it off mostly okay, the average editor cannot. We have no rule about this, but if you look at general editing patterns, you find that long-term productive editors mostly write on WP about their side interests, not their life's work, and that many flareups are caused by people doing the latter and getting too emotional about defending a particular PoV from their professional segment. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
Awaiting statements or other input (although it's not clear just who should be notified of this request). Could Feragho the Assassin or someone else please provide more specific links to the prior discussions that led to the topic-ban and site-ban, to the extent they are visible on-wiki, and any other on-wiki material we should review? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also awaiting any further input, and thought it worth clarifying if this is ultimately a request for amendment as well as clarification? If clarification only, then standard advice: topic bans can never be prescriptively defined, so if in doubt about whether an article is on the border of a ban, assume it is and find something else to edit. The examples referred to above are on the border of the ban; if you edit them I'd say there's a sanctions risk. However your request also has elements of an actual appeal against the ban, including for example your mention of the passage of time and your academic work. There's always a generic case for very old sanctions to be reconsidered, so it'd be worth clarifying if that's a part of this ARCA to make sure we consider all parts of the request. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferahgo; thanks for the reply - not sure if it's the best solution, just checking on whether its part of what's proposed (in which case it deserves consideration along with the clarification request). If this was just about clarification then I'd say construe the ban pretty broadly and stay away from those borderline topic areas - there's five million articles to work on, and plenty to do in other spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Noting the comments in this section and by Beyond My Ken, what do people think about suspending the topic ban for (say) six months, with authority for reinstatement by any uninvolved admin if problems arise, but otherwise expiring completely by October if no problems occur? Views particularly welcome from other editors in the "race and intelligence" space, with whom Ferahgo the Assassin would presumably then work alongside. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interpretation of topic ban: There seems a rough consensus that articles relating to "heritability of psychological traits" and "psychometrics of intelligence" do fall within the topic ban, and that the best way to satisfy "broadly construed" is to edit in entirely unrelated fields. Absent contrary views, suggest we wrap this part up with that outcome.
Lifting the topic ban:Separately, there seems no consensus on whether to suspend or lift the topic ban entirely. Per Doug Weller, suggest it stay in place as something to revisit once Ferahgo the Assassin has demonstrated (say) six months of reasonably active and trouble-free editing elsewhere.
I think this request and the previous one basically boil down to a clarification on whether this individual is topic banned from articles about "race and intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with both at the same time) or articles about "race or intelligence" (e.g. articles that have to do with race and also, separately, articles that have to do with intelligence). If the former, then editing articles about intelligence as the filing editor describes would generally not be an issue, so long as nothing in the article had anything to do whatsoever with race. Looking back on the case, I think the former was clearly the intent. It's worth noting that the former was the bounds of the topic area originally given for discretionary sanctions, and this topic ban was initially implemented as a discretionary sanction, so I actually don't see how the latter could be correct from a procedural perspective. ~ Rob13Talk13:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we're clarifying that the topic ban is really broader than explicitly written, we should amend it to be clear. I'll propose a motion to that effect shortly. ~ Rob13Talk16:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I can understand your procedural concern, but the outcome here is clear, the OP has accepted it, and I don't think we need to draw this out with a motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Due to off-wiki obligations, I haven't had time to write a motion yet. I don't want to drag this on forever, so I'm not going to hold this up further. ~ Rob13Talk20:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts mirror Euryalus' genrally - from a clarification point of view, the edits described would be on the edge of the ban and depending on the content and context might well lead to a sanction. That said, looking back at the history, I would support lifting the topic ban which has been in place for 4 years, but I would be interested in hearing community views on that matter. WormTT(talk) 19:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the clarification aspect of this mirrors those above - I think the topics you indicate in your request are on the border of the topic ban. Whether they'd violate it would depend on the specific material, but it's risky considering that the general view on topic bans is that they should encourage an editor to work on something completely unrelated, not on something very close. On the appeal aspect - well, I realize that I'm hardly one to be looking down my nose at low activity given my own sluggish editing rate lately, but I do notice that the low number of edits since the 2016 appeal makes it a bit difficult to judge the success of that decision. Still, I'd be willing to consider a suspension given the age of the sanctions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following up here, it looks like the consensus view is that these edits do violate the topic ban, and that suspending it would be considered after more activity in other areas. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Studies in the "psychometrics of intelligence" often discuss the intersection of race and intelligence, so I would say that is within your topic ban. You mention mental chronometry and again that is an area where people like Arthur Jensen, to quote our R&I article, "have argued that reaction time is independent of culture and that the existence of race differences in average reaction time is evidence that the cause of racial IQ gaps is partially genetic instead of entirely cultural." As for inheritance of psychological traits, intelligence can be defined as a psychological trait and psychological traits are said to be influenced by genetics. But if you are going to stay well away psychological traits linked in any way to race and intelligence, then that might be ok. You probably know that would include for instance avoiding the topic of response time and race. If in doubt, either avoid it or ask. I'm not willing to consider a suspension at the moment, but I might after six months of active editing. I'm sure there are plenty of articles that you can contribute to without coming near to anything related to your topic ban. Doug Wellertalk11:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing everything that has been presented here, I agree the edits requests are very, very close to crossing the line into the area where the topic ban currently is. I would reconsider a suspension of the ban in six months time, if there was a good faith effort to avoid the areas that led to the topic ban. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what's been presented here and privately to us off-wiki, I agree that the intended edits fall within the topic ban. At this time, I'm not comfortable with a suspension; I prefer Doug's suggestion that this be re-visited after six months of productive editing elsewhere on the project. ♠PMC♠ (talk)05:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "heritability of psychological traits” & “psychometrics of intelligence” are in practice so closely related to the R&I topic that they are included in the ban. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the consensus above that (1) the areas in question should be avoided under the topic-ban, and (2) we shouldn't suspend the topic-ban at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read this a few days ago and read it again just now; my thoughts run along Doug's. I'm willing to reconsider in six months with productive editing in other areas. Katietalk21:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ferahgo the Assassin's topic ban from the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed, is rescinded.
All restrictions on Ferahgo the Assassin's participation in dispute resolution are rescinded.
The two-way interaction ban between Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci (talk·contribs) remains in force.
These modifications will be subject to a probationary period lasting six months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the former editing restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the above modifications are to be considered permanently enacted.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
I see where BMK and MastCell are coming from, but I also hope, and believe based on FtA's comments, that this is an example of holding and advocating fringe views based on misinformation and then later learning enough about the underlying (complete lack of) evidence to move on from those views. I'd call that taking experience into account, rather than "expertise" per se. IMO what's relatively persuasive here is that FtA held fringe views before studying the subject and at a relatively young age, rather than the common pattern of someone citing their purported expertise as justification for their fringe views. Also, in my experience people who hold these views will always find a way to unsubtly slip them into conversation and would never last six months without doing so, so I'd expect the probation period to be a useful signal. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
The motion has carried, but I shall say this anyway.In 2010–12, Ferahgo the Assassin (FTA) engaged in grave misconduct. Much of this was in aid of a second party – now indefinitely blocked – but all of it related to this topic area. The misconduct led to Race and intelligence/Review, where it was not examined in greater detail because FTA was indistinguishable from another party to the case. FTA's appeal is well-made in that it sets out some intended contributions, notes a change of academic interest, and explains their changed viewpoint on the link between intelligence and heritage. However, the appeal fails to address the misconduct committed the last time FTA was allowed to edit content in this area. The kind of misconduct in question is not easily actioned at AE, because it can appear innocuous; the "suspension" clause may not offer the protection we think it does. On balance, I cannot approve returning FTA to this topic area.AGK ■19:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Largely per AGK, plus this strikes me as a poor idea punting to admins at AE that have, IMO, been reluctant to re-impose suspended sanctions. Courcelles (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Amendment request: Race and intelligence (June 2020)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I request that ArbCom open a review (I am not sure which clause this falls under, but I assume it's the discretionary sanctions.)
Statement by AndewNguyen
I am requesting that ArbCom examine the long-running series of disputes over this topic, which have escalated in the past few months, especially the past month. Several administrators and non-administrators have argued an arbitration case or review is needed to address this situation. This view was expressed at Arbitration Enforcement by the admins User:In actu, User:Ivanvector, and User:Barkeep49, and more recently in this discussion by user:SMcCandlish and the 2600:1004 IP user.
The following are some of the recent or current community discussions about these articles, although I may have missed some:
The following are some of the issues that need to be examined:
There is a concern, expressed in several of the recent Arbitration Enforcement reports, that some editors are attempting to remove or exclude well-sourced material from the article for dubious reasons.
There is a concern, expressed mainly in the RFC, that some users (especially NightHeron) are violating BLP policy by repeatedly stating that some living people are white supremacists, without presenting any sources that call them that.
There is a concern, also expressed in the RFC, about possible meatpuppetry or off-wiki canvassing.
There is a concern about whether or not TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC was improper.
I have not added the list of editors that should be parties, but see the comment by In Actu in which he suggested who the parties should be to such a case. If ArbCom decides to open a case or review, I request that they exercise their own judgement about who the parties should be, or follow In Actu's suggestion.
When this situation was escalating at the end of March, I took a break from Wikipedia for 4 weeks, so upon my return I'm disappointed to see that it is continuing to spawn new disputes among the same group of editors. Without ArbCom's intervention, it is likely to continue coming up again and again indefinitely.
@Joe: An argument now being made on the article's talk page, especially by NightHeron, is that the RFC outcome means it's no longer necessary for statements in the article to be based on any reliable source. The argument to ignore what reliable sources say about this topic was made by many of the people who voted "yes" in the RFC, and there was a fear that TonyBallioni's closure of the RFC would be seen as an endorsement of that position. SMcCandlish especially expressed that concern, both during the RFC and during the closure review afterwards. This is the most important concern about whether his closure was improper: whether it will be initerpreted as superseding the WP:Verifiability policy, as appears to indeed be happening. Now that the closure is being interpreted in this way, it seems inevitable that there will continue to be many more noticeboard reports over similar issues.
I don't completely understand the difference between making a request here and at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but I made it here because that is what was suggested by the admins at Arbitration Enforcement who argued that a review is needed. I ask that ArbCom please consider this request on its merits, instead of whether it was made in the correct venue. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn I think what SMcCandlish and Ferahgo are saying about the discretionary sanctions not working is that certain editors are now able to violate content and behavioral policies with impunity. For example during the RFC NightHeron apparently doxxed another Wikipedia editor, although the diff is no longer visible. No one else reacted to that or took any action. Isn't doxxing another Wikipedia editor normally a severe offense? If this topic area has reached the point that not even doxxing has any action taken about it, that's a sign that the discretionary sanctions aren't working. --AndewNguyen (talk) 21:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by JzG (R&I)
This may need a new full case. There are two deeply entrenched camps, and there is a good deal of argumentation that seems to an outsider to be intellectually dishonest, a sort of "teach the controversy" approach. Accusations of bad faith abound, not always without merit. Admins have tried to deal with the issue and failed.
It seems likely to me that the removal of this one single individual, with their remarkable talent for argufying, may be transformative. The talk page archives show, to my reading, many examples of stonewalling, sealioning, circular and tendentious argument by this IP and I think we should close this and see what happens without that one highly disruptive, prolific and, as it now turns out, probably bad-faith voice.
I therefore join with those others here who urge rejection of this request, especially since it contains no actual request for amendment or clarification. Guy (help!) 22:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud DGG's comments below. The demarcation between minority and fringe is as vexed - and as hard to discern - as that between science and pseudoscience. The solution is almost always more input from more people who do not have a dog in the fight. Guy (help!) 22:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by slatersteven
I was involved in the RFC and made the point that the claim "blacks have a different form of intelligence" is used by some as an example of white privilege (for example our system of maths is set up for the way white brains work). I was pointing out how this can in fact impact on articles about that (after all if its a fringe to say race affects intelligence that applies even when it is used as an excuse for black underachievement). But the RFC came to a conclusion, and I see no reason not to respect our processes. I however would be concerned if it could be shown the close ignored opinions based upon an essay, or presumptions of being a NAZI!.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by IP editor 2600:1004:b100::/40
Many thanks to AndewNguyen for making this request. As one of the people who thinks that an ArbCom case is needed, I had recently suggested to several other editors that someone should request arbitration. Now that this finally has been brought before ArbCom, I can mention something I've been wanting to mention for about a month, but that would have been inappropriate to bring up outside of ArbCom or AE.
It has been evident to me for a long time that NightHeron is a parody account, most likely being operated by someone associated with the alt-right. It's reasonably well-known that a large portion of the material related to human intelligence and intelligence researchers at RationalWiki is deliberate parodies (see the discussion here and here, among other places). The people who write this material are trying to make RationalWiki such an obvious caricature of left-wing talking points that no one takes the site seriously. Wikipedia has been vulnerable for a long time to the same type of trolling, and that appears to be what's happening now.
It is important to recognize the distinction between actual leftist beliefs, and the beliefs that members of the alt-right claim that leftists hold, and how perfectly NightHeron's editing matches the second description. Aside from race and intelligence, nearly all of NightHeron's editing has been to hot-button political topics such as White privilege, Male privilege, Ilhan Omar, and Abortion. This is not a random selection of topics - it is the precise set of topics that the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory claims are being used to undermine the culture of Europe and the United States. As a further way of advocating this conspiracy theory by basing his edits on its claims, during the RFC NightHeron was actually citing a book by a communist party member, which itself cites the works of Karl Marx, and arguing that this is a mainstream source.
There are three actions in particular that I think demonstrate NightHeron's status as almost certainly a parody account.
First, when NightHeron was challenged to provide a source supporting his statement that Heiner Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", the source that he provided was The New Observer, a right-wing fake news site that propagates anti-semitic conspiracy theories. The New Observer article that he cited is not publicly accessible, apparently because it either is paywalled or requires registration to view. By citing this article he let his disguise slip momentarily - why would any non-member of the alt-right not only be reading that site, but have access to the non-public articles there?
Second, as NightHeron explained in his comment here, he has been evading scrutiny with the use of multiple accounts. The explanation he gave there (that his other account uses his real name) is not convincing, because he could simply rename the account if he wanted to avoid editing under his real name. Presumably, his main account is the one that he uses for pushing his actual, right-wing point of view.
Finally, I wish to call attention to NightHeron's comment here, in which he stated that The same IP-editor recently made a similar accusation [of BLP violations] against me on the user-page of another admin, Barkeep49, who'd also been involved in the AfD/DRV. After I learned of the accusation by chance, I was able to defend myself, and nothing came of it. Barkeep49's actual words to NightHeron were, So as to the other pieces, I do think, now that you're here, that you need to be very careful when describing people as white supremacists. More careful than you've been to date - the stuff on Piffer is not nearly strong enough, for instance. NightHeron's statement that Rindermann is a "diehard white supremacist", cited to a right-wing fake news site, came after he was given this warning. So this is a case of an an editor gloating about how he was merely warned by an admin instead of sanctioned, and that he's thus entitled to continue the same behavior. (Incidentally, this behavior also has included an attempt at doxxing another Wikipedia editor.)
None of this is the behavior of a normal Wikipedia editor. But it is exactly the behavior one would expect from a person who is planning, sometime in the future, on writing an article for an alt-right website about how many Wikipedia policies he was able to get away with violating by making an alternate account that pretended to be a leftist. Wikipedia's admins should be embarrassed that they've allowed themselves to be hoodwinked with this tactic, especially if it's allowed to continue even now that I've pointed it out. 2600:1004:B159:2CC4:F8F8:76FE:335B:DEF6 (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: If you aren't able to see the evidence for what I'm saying, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the ways that members of the alt-right act when they're impersonating leftists. This is something that happens quite regularly, the NPC Twitter meme being a well-known example. This pattern of behavior becomes fairly easy to recognize after you've seen enough examples of it.
Regarding your question about behavioral issues that AE can't handle, I described one such issue in my comments here and here (the last two paragraphs). This is a case where an intelligence researcher lost his job as a result of the pattern of BLP violations in his Wikipedia article, and it was the catalyst for my becoming involved in Wikipedia, as well as for several other editors. (NightHeron was not the user responsible in this case.) His biography was tagged as an attack page twice, and six different users attempted to remove the violations, but their changes were almost immediately undone in each case. When the attorney of the person that this happened to contacted the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, he was told that it was the responsibility of the Wikipedia community to address this issue. But when the issue was raised at AE, the admins there took no action because the user responsible had not been notified of the discretionary sanctions with the correct template. [406]
All of this happened about a year ago, but the fact that both AE and the WMF legal team took no action in such an extreme case - as well as the fear among many other intelligence researchers that they may eventually lose their own livelihoods in the same way - is the original cause for many of the disputes that are happening currently. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: Gerhard Meisenberg's attorney sent an e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team, explaining how the additions to his Wikipedia article led to him losing his job, on June 17 of last year. The evidence was presented in that e-mail, but it included personal details that would not be appropriate to post in public. As a member of ArbCom, can you look at the contents of that message?
I don't want to have a long argument with you or act in a way that you consider disruptive, but you must understand that many of the people who feel they're in real-life danger because of this situation are my professional colleagues. So it's very difficult for me to accept that there truly is nothing ArbCom can do about it. 2600:1004:B16D:68CB:B8D2:906A:61F4:A60E (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to waste everyone's time with a detailed reply (or any reply) to the IP-editor 2600.xxx's cockamamie conspiracy theory about me. If anyone wants me to respond to any specific allegation, I'll do that and I'll try to be brief. NightHeron (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the no-voters on the RfC are using this forum to re-argue their position. Most recently, Literaturegeek has made some outrageous statements about the differences between supporters and opponents of the RfC. While claiming to be basing their appeal to ArbCom on core policies, these no-voters are ignoring the core policy that Wikipedia works by consensus. In this case the RfC lasted 35 days, had the participation of about 50 editors, and reached the consensus that the belief that some races are genetically inferior to others in intelligence is a fringe view. The close of the RfC [407] was upheld overwhelmingly by admins at WP:AN[408]. NightHeron (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I declined to respond to the charges against me by the IP-editor (in the statement above), I'd also prefer not to respond to Literaturegeek's barrage of accusations of misconduct against me (in Literaturegeek's statement below). At this point I don't think it's appropriate to re-argue the issues in the RfC or to trade accusations. I think that the real issue is the refusal of some of the RfC's no-voters to accept consensus. NightHeron (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Barkeep49
I do not think that a full case would be warranted at this time. My concern over retaliatory AE filings, which caused me to suggest this, has since abated. I think the content issues are being worked through in the ways described by policy. I think the community in the RfC review and AE actions taken is showing itself capable of handling this dispute for the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Barkeep49 above that I don't think a case is required, and in all honesty I don't think any amendment is needed either. The standard grounds for a case is that the community process is unable to work. In all the recent cases cited, the community process is working. I closed the recent RfC and took it for self-review because I knew otherwise someone would have. That was closed endorsing the outcome both on the merits and as rejecting the argument that my close was somehow improper. That brings an end to the community process for that content based question and the behavioral question that some tried to introduce was also resolved there as not having consensus either.I'd add the on top of all that I don't see what a case would add. There's nothing particularly new here, and DS already exist. If there is misbehavior in the content areas, just take the people misbehaving to AE. If someone is seeking ArbCom to review a content RfC that has already been reviewed by the community on both behavioral and content questions and resolved successfully on both point, that is outside of ArbCom's remit.If people feel someone is violating the conduct standards of a DS area, they should request enforcement at AE. If there are people engaging in retaliatory filings, that can also be dealt with at AE. If people are trying to use the closed RfC to argue for things it doesn't support, AE can be used. If people are stonewalling the implementation of a well-attended community RfC on one article's talk page, AE is also an option. There is zero evidence anything other than DS is needed here. People should let the DS process work. It's here to avoid repeated cases over the same issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to also mention my post here which includes more context and the RFC was here. I have not had time to work on this since, but considering that we're here, it was my intention to eventually propose as Clarification&Amendment a motion for WP:ARBR&I that is similar to a precedent in the abortion area: WP:ARBAB#IP editing prohibited (temporary measure) and WP:ARBAB#Modified by motion (allowing admins to as a discretionary measure protect talk pages when necessary). —PaleoNeonate – 10:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by jps
Anyone else find it interesting that the person who filed this is a WP:SPA with a penchant for editing from a pro-eugenics POV? That the account was inactive since 30 March and waltzes in to file this now that the RfC has closed? Oh, so very interesting, isn't it? jps (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, according to the article, Meisenberg "is a director, with Richard Lynn, of the Pioneer Fund" and those us familiar with the R&I debacle understand that means the IP should be indefinitely topic banned, broadly construed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am amused to see that Ferahgo the Assassin, a former front-line warrior in the R&I conflicts – who over the course of 6 years was topic banned, site banned, un-sitebanned with R&I restrictions and finally un-restricted [411] – and is still an editor with a definite POV concerning the subject, had the gall to express an opinion here as if she is an impartial observer. I call that chutzpah. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Dlthewave
Except for the RfC closure which was discussed and endorsed at AN, the specific concerns raised here haven't been brought to a noticeboard (aside from side comments in tangentially related threads) or become an intractable situation that needs the attention of ARBCOM. I would expect an editor coming off a month-long hiatus to at least engage in the ongoing talk page discussions before seeking arbitration remedies. If that fails, I don't see anything that can't be resolved through the standard AE/DS process.
More than anything, this topic would benefit from a few admins willing to wade into the mess and address user conduct issues as they happen. Swift admin actions like blocking an IP range and issuing inline warnings can quash bad behavior before it escalates while avoiding noticeboard drama. It's encouraging to see that this taking place and I'm optimistic that our normal consensus building process will suffice for the time being. –dlthewave☎02:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AndewNguyen can you tell us what steps were taken by editors who were aware of the alleged doxxing incident? Did anyone file an ANI or AE report or perhaps send an email to ArbCom? If you're claiming that our processes failed to address the issue, you should present evidence that an effort was indeed made to utilize those processes. –dlthewave☎13:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by SMcCandlish
I think this badly needs further ArbCom review and clarification, if not a whole additional RfArb. (And I'm okay with being named a party, as I've been long-term involved in this and related topics, e.g. as a "voice of reason and science" shepherd at Race (human categorization), and am even responsible for that article title; also the author of WP:Race and ethnicity; and I'm the opener of the back-to-back WP:VPPOL RfCs that led to |religion= and |ethnicity= being removed from most biographical infoboxes. I am definitely involved.)
On Race and intelligence, we've been through months of back-to-back dispute resolution methodologies on this (from AfD attempts to noticeboardings to a recent RfC with a close that said nothing we didn't already know and failed to address the central policy question, about suppression of sources). This has all been basically to no avail at all. The current restrictions and AC/DS regime for this topic (for several years now) have had no useful effect at the community level, only for swiftly blocking trolls/socks (who were already blockable under existing policy anyway). We're right back to the same two entrenched camps trying decide how to slow-editwar their way to a doctrinal victory. This is not how WP is built. My previous comments in the RfC this month, and in previous rounds, and in very recent/ongoing thread at User talk:SMcCandlish#The RFC cover this in more detail than anyone would want.
The short version is that the idea "there is a connection between race and intelligence" is basically a fringe-science viewpoint. However, research demonstrating population differences at various discrete tasks are not always fringe (though they almost always point to socio-economic and other cultural factors, not genetic ones, and it is often later, follow-on, cross-disciplinary research that demonstrates this). Likewise, research demonstrating heritability of minor deltas in performance at discrete cognitive tests of various sorts are also not all fringe. But population != gene != "race"; and isolated cognitive tests (e.g. regurgitation of strings of numbers from short-term memory, or whatever) != "intelligence". Yet there is a putsch here to effectively censor mention of all such research from Wikipedia, including a smear campaign against publishers of such research as "fringe scientists", which is basically a WP:BLP and WP:NPA policy failure. This has been predicated upon an "ends justify the means" far-left extremist position, being brought to bear against the misinterpretation and mis-spinning of such research by racist far-right extremists. It's time for the extremists on both sides of this matter to be barred from the subject area.
What we're dealing with here is an umbrella subject that is basically artificial (both as to "race" and as to "intelligence"), but this is something that people are going to continue overgeneralizing to, both in bad research and in bad press, and which our readers are going to continue searching for and reading about. This is not going to go away. WP has a responsibility to get this right: to present why the central idea is – according to a broad scientific consensus, not just dogmatic socio-politics – pseudo-scientific; what evidence there is of population differences in some discrete cognitive tests (usually statistically insignificant), and why it does not equate to "intelligence" or to "race", but is most often related to level of Westernization, society-internal class and economics, and other cultural biases in the testing; and what claims have been debunked, how, and why.
If we don't do this right, then we effectively cede total control over this topic to far-right webboards, which are going to rely on long-discredited "research" to "prove" a bunch of racist nonsense. WP is the place where, for the average reader, discrediting has to live. It can't live here if people keep mass-deleting all material relating to the claims and the research flaws that led to them, and to their debunking. This cannot be hidden away in the back of the closet. This is one of those "sunlight is the best disinfectant" matters.
While ArbCom cannot decide a content matter, it certainly can decide when particular parties are violating policies and pillars to enforce their own politicized viewpoint, and ban them from the topic. ArbCom can also identify topic-specific PoV-pushing patterns of this sort, proscribe them, and add more DS to enforce those proscriptions, so that a new crop of combatants a month after the current batch are T-banned can't just re-start the same disruption. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that (now T-banned or not), 2600:... makes a good procedural point: "the most recent AE report specifically referred these matters to ArbCom. So for ArbCom to refer them back to AE seems to be saying there are some issues that both ArbCom and AE think it's the other party's job to address." That's not the first time this sort of buck-passing cycle has occurred, and it always resolves back to ArbCom having to clarify or take a new case, so we might as well just get on with it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AndewNguyen: I wasn't even aware of the doxxing/outing you referred to (though the party you name as responsible for it is one of those whose behavior I already thought should be examined with an eye to a T-ban). So, that specific incident didn't have anything to do with my comments above, which are more generalized. This is simply a hot-bed of non-stop editorial strife, in which people at both extremes are getting away with all sorts of things that are counter to policy and to the purpose of Wikipedia. When AE finally gets around to leveraging any of the extant DS about it, it's generally a one-sided application. While I'm sure it does not have the intent of a supervote, it is likely to have the effect of one, due to WP's strongly left-leaning internal editorial bias. I lean that way myself, but I'm self-analytical enough to recognize that it is a bias, and that no matter how much I might agree with the politico-philosophical impetus behind bad-acting antics, they are still bad-acting antics and should not be excused, nor permitted to continue. If the current AE enforcement regime on this topic is having this result, it means that ArbCom hasn't made it clear enough what is proscribed and that it isn't proscribed only for people right of center. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Ferahgo
SMcCandlish's comment that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is on point. Clearly the discretionary sanctions haven't been effective, at least in recent months. I don't foresee the community being able to untangle the long-term problems in this topic area on its own. I'm curious if DGG has an opinion here, as an arbitrator whom I believe understands the scope and depth of the issues. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Steve Quinn
I am a little confused as to what's happening. I don't actually see any requests for Amendments or Clarification, except a generalized comment by User:Ferahgo saying the discretionary sanctions have not been recently working. But nothing specific is being requested in that post. In any case, I think discretionary sanctions and the dispute resolution process in this area are working just fine. As was stated below, frequent disputes are expected in a topic area such as this. It's only a problem if the dispute resolution process breaks down - and it hasn't. Frankly, I am glad to see it working. It's the way it's supposed to be. It may not be fun sometimes - but that's showbiz. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding that TonyBalloni has given a good summation of the tools currently available to resolve issues, and which issues apply to what venue. An arbcom case is certainly not necessary at this time. In fact, maybe we should post Tony's statement to the top of the R & I talk page (humorous), or at least provide a link to the statement (humorous). ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Literaturegeek
The amendment that I think would help, in terms of trust and confidence as well as the long-term future of this topic area, is for RfCs that are likely to lead to major changes to the topic area (e.g. deletion of articles or an RfC that could result in a major rewriting of the topic area as a whole) require to be closed by a 3 admin panel, to guard against bias and WP:SUPERVOTEs. There is a recent example in this topic area where race and intelligence was nominated for deletion: this AfD, wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination), where, if you click the show button for the overturned close, below the three admin close statement, you will see that a very substandard close as delete occurred, which many in the deletion review felt was very POV or even a WP:SUPERVOTE was made that caused a lot of wasted community time in a deletion review and almost resulted in a major article being deleted without just cause. A three admin close panel reached the opposite conclusion to the alleged supervote and overturned it and closed the article as “keep”. See the deletion review here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_February_12#Race_and_intelligence_(4th_nomination). The deletion review was only successful because the Close was so poorly worded where even the closer themselves pretty much said as much in their close, otherwise, like I say, an article could have been deleted without just cause.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?08:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another area of clarification that this topic area requires is what takes precedent when an RfC close conflicts with policy? The ‘race and intelligence’ ArbCom case confirms the no original research policy, etc, however the recent RfC close effectively instructs editors to misrepresent the weight and conclusions of academic sources because there really is no academic consensus in this subject area: there is indeed differences of opinions between anthropologists and educational psychologists, neuropsychologists who research intelligence. Take for example this 2020 survey published inIntelligence (journal) of intelligence research psychologists (which actually answered the RfC question but supposedly wikipedians know more than the experts) that found that only 16 percent of experts regarded I.Q. gaps between races to be fully explained by environmental factors, with 43 percent saying mostly genetics and 40 percent saying mostly environmental factors explain the gap. The RfC instructs the community to misrepresent the entire discipline of psychology and falsify an academic consensus that does not exist instead of explaining the controversy neutrally. Although I have never edited the race and intelligence article I did watch list it after becoming involved in the associated Articles for deletion discussion and indeed editors are now actively ignoring NOR/WEIGHT etc., citing on the talk page the RfC close. From following the AfD, RfC etc., I believe that the problem is more complex than ‘racists versus anti-racists’, I think many of the editors fall into two different camps, those who don’t like racism but personally find pseudoscience more unacceptable and those who find racially offensive datasets and interpretations thereof more offensive than pseudoscience/misrepresenting sources. The RfC, if carefully read, shows that ‘Yes votes’ provided mostly original research or misinterpretations of sources to justify their arguments whereas ‘No votes’ were backed by sources and strong WP policy arguments. So what takes precedent, an RfC close or WP policies? Currently the article talk page has turned into a new escalating battleground which I feel attention from ArbCom could benefit. If you would like some diffs I can provide them if requested but will wait to see what the Arbs feedback is first. The question for ArbCom clarification is: should the conclusions of sources and the weight of sources be misrepresented as well as original research be permitted in article editing in order to comply with the RfC close?--Literaturegeek | T@1k?04:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to NightHeron
The RfC was hardly a fair environment NightHeron: Editors who voted no were routinely aggressively personally attacked by several editors as being racists, even like myself who have no history of editing in the topic area; these personal attacks undoubtedly put off members of the community from commenting or voting against the RfC or its close review, thus biasing the results. Also during the RfC, authors of RS were repeatedly attacked, mostly by you, as white supremacists if said sources went against the RFC; these attacks were unsourced BLP violations. Requests were made repeatedly to stop making serious BLP violations during the RfC but these requests were repeatedly ignored. As for the community review of the close, that RfC was massive and I doubt more than a few people voting in the review would have read that RfC from top to bottom which is why a three admin panel close would have prevented all of this controversy and division.
NightHeron if my concerns are unfounded that the RfC close encourages, even forces, original research etc., then why are you now implementing the RfC close via original research, misrepresenting sources, synthesising your own original opinions, etc? Why can you not just follow what reliable sources say? See examples below:
In these diffs ([412] and [413]) NightHeron personally attacked other editors who disagree with him apologists of scientific racism. This type of behaviour was a constant theme towards people who commented against the RfC and it continues in the topic area.
So, yes, there are issues of behaviour and ongoing policy violations occurring in this topic area. My view is the RfC close has exacerbated behavioural issues in this topic area rather than helped.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?09:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
@AndewNguyen: ARCAs usually contain a question about or request to modify specific remedies (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Types of requests). If your intention is to request a new case on race and intelligence, it should be made at WP:ARC with all the parties listed and notified. But personally I would not accept a case on the basis of "concerns" alone. Race and intelligence is a fraught topic that's already subject to multiple sanctions. That there are frequently disputes about it isn't particularly unexpected or problematic in itself. It would be a problem if these disputes weren't being resolved, but almost all the discussions you linked were formally closed by an experienced admin with an appropriate, consensus-based outcome. That would suggest that the normal dispute resolution procedures are working. – Joe (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish and 2600:1004:B100::/40: Did AE refer this to us? In the thread 2600:1004 linked, Swarm's close was just Consensus here is against unanimously implementing an IP ban. Continue to deal with issues on a case by case basis, and feel free to try to renegotiate this in the community forum. In any case, if we do need to look at this afresh, it needs to be a case request and not an ARCA. The difference is more than procedural hair-splitting: ARC has guidelines on formatting so that we can actually assess whether there is a reason for ArbCom to be involved, will make sure the parties are properly listed and notified, and is much more widely viewed than ARCA. As bradv says below, there is no request here so we will have to archive it soon. Please consider filing a case request if you think this needs further attention. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for this topic, so most of the conduct concerns that come up should be able to be handled to AE. If there's something that cannot be handled at AE we can of course have a look, but it's not clear to me that there is any such concern expressed in this thread. However, I am very concerned by the extraordinary allegations presented by the IP above, for which there is an acute lack of evidence. This does not strike me as an accusation made in good faith. – bradv🍁01:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2600:1004:B100::/40, you still have not offered any evidence for your accusation. I don't dispute that there are people who pretend to have the opposite point of view from their own in order to troll others, but your allegations that NightHeron is guilty of this behaviour are baseless. Furthermore, the AE discussion you link lacks evidence, in that it doesn't prove that someone lost their job due to a BLP violation in an article, nor does it provide a clear explanation of what those alleged BLP violations actually are. The aspersions against other editors need to stop. I'm not sure if this is the case or not, but I'll say it anyway: choosing to edit without an account cannot be used as a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. – bradv🍁02:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the IP range has now been topic banned by the community, which addresses the concerns I expressed in my previous comment. While some of the opinions expressed above have been enlightening and informative, and those editing the topic area would do well to read them, I still don't see any specific requests to clarify or amend the existing R+I case. Assuming there are no further comments from the other arbs, I think this discussion can be archived. – bradv🍁01:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested a specific clarification or amendment of the prior case decision that would be helpful, so I don't see anything useful for us to do here at this time. The accusations by the 2600 IP are without merit and I note the subsequent community ban of that editor. The discretionary sanctions authorization remains in place and can be invoked as needed. Questions such as whether certain RfCs should be closed by multi-admin panels are questions of policy not for decision by ArbCom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked some time ago to comment,I apologize for not posting this here earlier, but: " I think the question is whether RfC and AE enforcement on this topic is fair, done by neutral admins not having a prejudice on the issue. The number of people involved, their differing amounts of real-world knowledge of the subject, and of Wikipedia , the intractable RW nature of the controversy, the length of time this has been discussed at Wikipedia , all make this a singularly difficult situation.. But whether we have jurisdiction and responsibility depends upon whether we have the right to be the final resort to correct gross failures of NPOV. Earlier committees have indeed thought we did: I refer here to the decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience in 2006 (UTC) and the subsequent decisions based on it. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of areas where it is relatively difficult or impossible to distinguish minority science-based positions from fringe positions. This provides an opportunity for those having a particular POV to argue that their opponents are fringe, rather than minority; those with the opposite POV will argue their position is minority, not fringe. People deliberately or inadvertently confuse what is the actual general scientific view now with what it was 20 or 50 or 100 years ago, or think that scientific questions can be settled by finding whoever is the most impressive authority, or the more authoritative journal, or some contrived reason to reject a source that tells against one's position. People assume there is one clear scientific consensus when the situation is amorphous, or just the opposite. Saying that WP adopts a Scientific POV does not necessarily help much.
The result of this is that in many controversial areas the NPOV/SPOV has a tendency to match the preconceptions of a majority of those WPedians who happen to be interested enough in the question to join the argument here. This can cause confusion even in purely scientific areas, including medicine; it can cause great confusion when the question is a mixture of science and politics, as it probably is in R&I; it is blatantly incompatibility with a NPOV in fields which dominated by those who think there is a SPOV that supports one or another political party. We are amused or horrified now by the POV presumptions in the 1906 Brittanica; we should be just as concerned about our own.
I think the whole issue needs to be revisited. We can't say here what the NPOV (or SPOV) is on any particular issue--those are questions of content. We should have a good deal more to say about the fairness of the process by which the contents is determined and expressed in our articles. I'm not sure the question originally asked here is the right formulation for a case, which should not be limited to R&I. Maybe "the process of forming consensus on article content"? or even "ensuring representation of all responsible positions"? DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And there's another aspect to it: the often successful attempts to delete articles on the proponents of fringe (and sometimes, even minority views). One example is climate change, with efforts to remove articles on notable scientists often in other fields who have not accepted the scientific consensus in this one. (I don't want to judge, but it seems like attempts to conceal that there are a few genuine scientists who don't accept it, as well as the much larger number of cranks) Objections are typically raised to the sources, or to the number of publications, that would not be raised if their views had remained orthodox. This destroys the apparent NPOV of WP, because if a reference source lists only supporters of one side of a position but not its opponents, a reader coming here would assume we are biased. (There has also been an analogous effort to maximize the number of article on people supporting some forms of political economics (just as an example). It goes in all directions. We cannot judge here at arb com which people or books or beliefs are notable, but we can discuss and try to deal with the process which leads to biased decisions.
What it all amounts to, we need to find a way to deal with the inadvertent result of our process in promoting the dominance of the majority POV, not the NPOV. Maintaining the integrity of our basic policies is our job, tho specific decisions are up to the community . DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Clarification request: Race and intelligence (May 2021)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Dennis Brown
Question/request regarding Extended Confirmed Protection WP:ECP and a case at WP:AE where it is being considered for the article Race and Intelligence[414]. I do not see RI listed at the ECP page, so this may be a problem. It seems like a really good idea given the sheer volume of problems the article has had, particularly in the political environment of the last year, so the two are intersecting more than usual. It is likely that I would impose ECP if it is either proper to do so now (clarification) or if not, if the committee would extend ECP to include RI topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. The rules are definitely muddy on that page, and I use my words more than the tools when possible. Assuming I do use ECP, I would want it to be a AE restriction so it can be reviewed formally once it expires, btw. Thanks for the prompt replies. Dennis Brown - 2¢20:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by MjolnirPants
It's clear that ECP has been used sparingly, and only on specific topics. However, the request at WP:AE which prompted this request for clarification is a prime example of why ECP should be more widely available. Not because it's needed on less contentious topics, but because there are more topics which are just as contentious, which could benefit from certain pages getting ECPed. To be clear, I support Dennis' suggestion at AE that this be applied temporarily with the option to extend it if it helps. I understand that this is a request for clarity, but I also recognize that mere fact that such a request is needed shows that Arbcom is faced with a decision now on exactly how to clarify this. A response (other than to decline this request) requires that Arbcom choose between requiring a formal request to extend ECP outside of the original topics, or if such a decision can be left to the admins at AE. While I'm leery of the notion that any admin can apply ECP to any page at their own judgement, I think a consensus at AE should be sufficient to decide a request for temporary (or indefinite, but conditional) ECP. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.16:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Race and intelligence: Clerk notes
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion
Are you asking about the one article Race and intelligence? If so, you can ECP protect it yourself, either as an ordinary admin action or as a discretionary sanction. I see the AE discussion mentions ECPing the talk page as well; DS allows that too, but since there's a discussion at AE I would not unilaterally do so unless the AE discussion is in favor. I don't see anything else for the Committee to do here. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 18:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the related AE thread, Politrukki makes the technical point that The remedy authorises using standard DS only for editors who fail to adhere to principles outlined in remedy 5.2 (emphasis in original), and that page restrictions are not authorized under that remedy. However, this is a flawed understanding of our decision. The remedy was enacted in 2011, before standard wording for discretionary sanctions was adopted. Under the discretionary sanctions procedure, page restrictions are authorized in all areas where DS is authorized (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions). Additionally, the procedure explicitly provides that Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control. (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Authorisation). I think it's unambiguous that page restrictions are authorized in the R&I area just like in any other DS authorization area. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: I understand your confusion based on what is written at WP:ECP. What is written there are places where entire topics are under 1RR. However, that is not made clear at ECP and should be clarified. I agree with L235 that you may, as either a regular admin action or a DS action, extend ECP to either or both the article and the talk page and further agree that doing so at the talk page could best be achieved, at this point, following discussion at the current AE request. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the May 2016 motions would suggest that ECP has been used in the past as a discretionary sanction in the past outside of cases that explicitly called for it. For the sake of clarity, I don't see a problem with the proposed course of action here. Maxim(talk)14:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
