Revision as of 08:15, 11 March 2012

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Request to amend prior case: WP:ARBCC (Cla68)

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

WP:ARBCC

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Misplaced Pages:ARBCC#Cla68 topic-banned (Remedy 15)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Amendment 1

• Request lifting of topic ban

Statement by Cla68

I'd like to request removal of the topic ban. I was thinking of not ever requesting a return to the topic, but an incident caused me to reconsider.

I am a daily reader of the Japan Times newspaper. One of my WP activities is adding citations to articles, mainly about Japan, related to articles I read in the morning's paper. I think it was this edit using a non-web-available citation, which made me reconsider the topic ban. The citation in question contained some useful information on Japan's response to carbon-reduction efforts, which is related to the global warming issue. Because of the topic ban, I was able to use the citation to add some non-related information to the article, but was unable to add the information related to global warming. I realized that the ban was getting in the way of me being able to improve articles on Japan.

Since the ban was enacted on 14 October 2010, the following is a sample of my contributions to Misplaced Pages, both in article and admin space:

• Three featured articles which I co-edited with other editors (primarily Sturmvogel 66 and Dank):

• Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga (Actually this one passed FA while the ARBCC case was ongoing)
• Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō (17 January 2011)
• Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi (4 February 2012)

• Helped significantly expand or improve several other articles, including:

• Vermouth (one of WP's top 10,000 most viewed articles and scores above 4 in all its page ratings)
• Arlington National Cemetery mismanagement controversy
• Camp Lejeune water contamination
• 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (many edits since this article started immediately after the incident)

• Co-certifier on the Cirt RfC
• WP:V RfC. Although I didn't take part in the final decision, I think it was my push which finally got three admins to buckle down and close it.

• I was blocked once during this time, for a matter related to the Fae RfC. The majority opinion at the block review was that the block was incorrect, and me and blocking admin don't appear to have any acrimony. On that issue, I have started drafting an essay on logical fallacies, which I will eventually propose for upgrading to a guideline. The goal is to influence WP editors to stop using logical fallacies, such as ad hominem or straw man arguments, when debating an issue. Cla68 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• @AGK, the finding was correct. I did engage in those behaviors while editing the climate change (CC)/global warming topic area. I won't do it again. I do have actual evidence of my commitment not to do so. After the case was over, I wrote an essay, called WP:ACTIVIST with help from SlimVirgin and a few others. The essay was not only, or even primarily, based on my experience in the CC topic area. After completion, the essay was amended quite a bit, to say the least, by other editors, including some of the climate change regulars. If you check the edit history, although many editors revert-warred with each other over that essay, I was not one of them. I made not a single revert. This is what my original draft looked like. These are the drastic changes made to it by other editors, including Will Beback and Scotty Berg, who has been revealed recently to have been a sock of Mantanmoreland. I basically let them have at it even though it had taken me a lot of time and effort to get the essay to where it was. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

On 9 October 2011, Cla68 (talk · contribs) posted on Misplaced Pages Review:

Fortunately for WMC, Misplaced Pages doesn't have a "Child of Privilege-big-ego, artificially affected misanthropic, jaded, high-falooting" activist rule, or he would have been sent on his way long ago.

Here's the thing, I truly don't belive that WMC, Stephan Schulz, Kim Dabelstein Peterson, or Short Brigade Harvester Boris are really scientists, because I can't belive that true scientists would act as deceitfully, dishonestly, or as insecurely and cowardly as they act. If they are really scientists, I would like to know which universities they teach at to ensure that I don't send my kids to those bush league institutions. To be clear, I respect scientists who truly believe in man-made global warming but recognize that they might be wrong. The ones who don't are the ones who try to use Misplaced Pages to artificially socialize their positions.

That statement raises some doubt in my mind as to whether Cla68 has, in fact, moved past a battleground mentality on climate-change articles.

Regarding the admissibility of off-site commentary, policy clearly states that "personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions... Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases." MastCell  19:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by dave souza

Arbcom's 2010 finding referred to Cla68's "inappropriate use of sources".
Recently, Cla68 ignored talk page discussion showing that a source was fringe and at best questionable, and joined in with suggestions that it be used as a source for other articles. After being advised this was inappropriate, he added a new section based solely on this source to one of the articles. When I undid this addition, he posted accusations on my talk page, took it up on the article talk page, and also took it to FTN and RSN. Cla68 received little or no support in these discussions, or in the continuation of the original discussion.
The links in the Arbcom finding show misrepresentation of a reliable source: this instance is different in being, in my opinion, disruptive pushing of an unreliable fringe source while omitting mainstream context. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

Replace the CC topic ban by a 0RR restriction for CC related edits originally made by Cla68 himself. This means that when corrected or completely reverted by non-vandals, Cla68 cannot revert back, but he can revert any other edits (and that only once, because once he reverts it counts as his edits, so it amounts to 1RR such a case). Count Iblis (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other editor

Further discussion

Statement by Binksternet

One of the possible interim solutions to help Cla68 regain the trust of the community is to allow one talk page entry per day per article in the previously banned topic. The talk page entry could be used to suggest changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Cla68: In 2010, this committee found that you "engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, inappropriate use of sources, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality". I make no presumption about your current contributions, but we must know: in relation to the subject of Climate Change (and not your - admittedly admirable - edits elsewhere), what has changed? AGK 00:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Given the rationale for the amendment request, as an intermediate or interim step, I wonder whether it would make sense to start with a modification that would allow edits about climate change specifically in the context of Japan. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Sounds like a good first step (lifting WRT Japan articles) the WR comment postdates the Activist essay by several months. I can't see how that attitude is going to avoid clashing horns with someone sooner rather than later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Discretionary sanctions in cases named after individual editors

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Digwuren arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Martinphi-ScienceApologist arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. The "Standard discretionary sanctions" section, variously named and numbered.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

N/A: the suggested amendment is cosmetic.

Amendment 1

Statement by Timotheus Canens

This request is prompted by a recent AE request, in which the practice of naming the applicable discretionary sanctions provision after an editor caused confusion on an editor who is not very familiar with the AE process. The three listed cases are the only cases named after individual editor(s) with a discretionary sanctions provision, according to WP:AC/DS; all other cases are named after the relevant topic area instead.

I recommend that the Committee make a cosmetic amendment that allows these discretionary provisions to be easily referenced using an arbitration case named after the subject area instead of individual editor(s). Not only is the latter approach rather counterintuitive and potentially confusing (if someone unfamiliar with AE wants to look up the discretionary sanctions provision for Eastern Europe, WP:DIGWUREN is not really the most obvious place to look), but it is also rather unfair to the editors at issue to have their usernames perpetuated in literally years of AE requests that usually have nothing to do with them. Digwuren (talk · contribs), for example, has not edited since June 2009, yet his username has been, and will be, by necessity, brought up in all AE discussions related to Eastern Europe simply because, by happenstance, the discretionary sanctions in this topic area was passed in a case named after him. As Newyorkbrad observed in a somewhat analogous situation, such a situation is "neither dignified nor fair". T. Canens (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@Kirill:

• For Martinphi-ScienceApologist, my suggestion is to move the entire discretionary sanctions apparatus to the existing Pseudoscience arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t). The discretionary sanctions in this area were added by motion simultaneously to both the Pseudoscience case and the M-SA case, so the log is already split across two cases. When the Committee standardized discretionary sanctions, the new phrasing was added only to the M-SA case.
• For Digwuren, the problem is that we already have the Eastern European disputes arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) which post-dates this case. Maybe simply "Eastern Europe"?
• For Abd-WMC, perhaps "Cold fusion 2"? T. Canens (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: WP:ARBRB doesn't have any remedy targeting non-parties to the case, which is why I didn't include it in the list. T. Canens (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1

Seems like an excellent idea Tim.

Statement by EdJohnston

I support Tim's proposal to rename these cases. Replacing 'Digwuren' with 'Eastern Europe' sounds good. The acronym WP:ARBEE is available even though WP:EE is in use. Another option is WP:EECASE. We should not worry too much about confusing the proposed name, 'Eastern Europe', with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes, since that case is less well known and there have been no enforcement actions since 2009. Tim did not mention Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys, also known as WP:ARBRB. If you want to include ARBRB in the reform, then how about 'Former Soviet Union' as a new name. EdJohnston (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tim: I accept your reasoning for why ARBRB should not be included in the reform.

@Courcelles: Keeping 'Eastern Europe' in the revised case name For Digwuren would be a benefit not a disadvantage. The older cases, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes and WP:EEML, are historical curiosities and they don't need to be referred to very often. It is unlikely that any violations are going to be reported at AE in 2012 under these cases. WP:DIGWUREN is frequently cited at AE but it could logically be renamed to something like Eastern Europe. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

I would also like for WP:ARBRB to be renamed to something that does not include my username. I see no reason why I should also be required to put up with an Arb case being named (partly) after me, when the issues of the case were deeper than that -- as suggested by Ed above. Russavia 10:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

This has been suggested before, IIRC, had some support but because it wasn't seen as urgent at the time no one got around to carrying through. This is a good time to implement it then. I think Tim articulates the reasons for why this is a good idea quite well, so I don't have much to add on that.

All of Timotheus C's and EdJohnston's specific renaming suggestion are good.VolunteerMarek 16:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

This is both long overdue and welcome.

• I would suggest ARB-EE for Eastern European disputes OUTSIDE the Soviet legacy--DIGWUREN is the appropriate basis: the later EE arbitration case actually resulted in some level of amnesty and moving forward; all the sanctions are in the Digwuren case (the one-sided naming has always been a problem as well).
• I also suggest/second ARB-FSU (Former Soviet Union) for Soviet legacy cases (historic portrayal) as well as current geopolitics, i.e., Russia related to South Ossetia, Transnistria, et al. as well as the wider conflict between official Russia and the Eastern European countries over the Soviet legacy.

To some of the other comments, I don't see that EEML poses any confusion issue. This does leave us with what I see as one issue remaining regarding the above and all that has been stated so far:

• "EE" is not really the appropriate rename for DIGWUREN, as I believe the sanctions have exhibited considerable scope creep outside the original Baltic purview. It might be more appropriate to consider a name completely outside the EE realm, a bit wordy but ARB-GEOPOLITICS might be what we are really after.

I would like to see a more active approach to renaming cases as soon as their enforcement bounds move beyond the scope of the original case and editors involved. There is no useful purpose to stigmatizing editors on any side of an issue manifesting strong disagreements amongst editors. I trust that actions here will set a positive precedent. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Seems the previous case that is named Eastern European Disputes was renamed for similar reasons as it was also previously named after a specific editor. However, it appears the Digwuren case has been the only one cited with regards to sanctions in the topic area. Not sure what the appropriate action would be there but several of the same editors are mentioned in those two cases and they involve the same topic area. As far as potential short names I think WP:EEUR or WP:EASTEUR would be good ones as they are regularly-used abbreviations and sufficiently distinct from the existing short names such as EEML.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I see no problems with a cosmetic amendment of this sort in principle. Timotheus, please identify suitable new names for the three cases you mention, and we will proceed from there. Kirill  16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Kirill. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• I also support this proposal. (In the case of Digwuren, we need to be careful not to confuse the new case name with the similar but separate Eastern European mailing list.) AGK 22:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• As one who spent nine months trying to figure out what DIGWUREN was an acronym for, I fully support more sensible names - Eastern Europe disputes (perhaps abbreviated to WP:EED)) would be so much more intelligible. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• If we're going to do this, can we come up with something for Diguren that doesn't include the phrase "Eastern Europenan"? With EED and EEML already out there, another case title like that is just going to be confusing. Actually, I've always thought that Digquren and Macedonia having discretionary sanctions was overkill, and could be consolidated, since the area covered by Macedonia's sanctions is just s subset of Eastern Europe. Might be worth considering while we're here... Courcelles 14:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• The discretionary sanctions provision of Digwuren has the scope of "Articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". I share the view of Ed and the other observers that the similarly-named cases (EEML being the most prominent) are nevertheless infrequently cited. I therefore propose as follows. AGK 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To rename Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

1) The case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is renamed to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. For the new title of Eastern Europe, WP:ARBEURO and WP:ARBEE are created as shortcuts. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Digwuren decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Digwuren case to Eastern Europe is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support

1. Proposed per above discussion. Many variants on Eastern Europe, such as Eastern Europe disputes, do exist, but I know from experience with enforcement that simpler case names are far less bothersome. AGK 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
4. As long as whatever it is isn't confusing to others, it's fine by me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comment by Arbitrators

Motion: Martinphi-ScienceApologist discretionary sanctions moved

2) The discretionary sanctions provision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Standard discretionary sanctions are moved to a new section underneath Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. The annotation at Psuedoscience that the older discretionary sanctions are superseded by Martinphi-ScienceApologist is stricken, and to it is appended a note that "Those discretionary sanctions were later moved by motion to this case" with a link to this motion. The sanctions at Martinphi-ScienceApologist are striken, with a note that they are "moved by motion to Psuedoscience" with a link to the new sanctions and to this motion.

The purpose of moving the discretionary sanctions provision is to bring it within a case with an appropriate, clear title. Previous actions and current sanctions with their basis on this discretionary sanctions provision are not affected by this move.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support

1. Proposed. Psuedoscience already exists, but counter-intuitively the discretionary sanctions for the topic were put under the Martinphi case. This motion moves the sanctions to the auspices of the case of broader scope, for clarify in future referencing. AGK 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comment by Arbitrators

Motion: To rename Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

1) The case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support

1. Proposed. AGK 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Kirill  01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
4. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comment by Arbitrators

Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) at 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Case affected

Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

• That Mathsci is banned from interacting with or mentioning me and Captain Occam anywhere on Misplaced Pages.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

Despite my having had no interaction with him in many months, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is continuing to bring me up on Misplaced Pages in inappropriate situations after being asked multiple times by arbitrators to stop. Arbcom has requested that Mathsci drop this issue at least four times:

• February, Roger Davies asked him to leave it to uninvolved editors to bring it up if someone's editing in R&I is a problem.
• April, Risker told him clearly to disengage.
• September, Roger Davies and Cool Hand Luke both told him to disengage. From my understanding, the only reason he wasn't given an interaction ban is because the arbitrators were confident he would follow their advice.
• And finally, two weeks ago he was formally warned by Jclemens to stop bringing up off-wiki evidence against other editors.

But Mathsci has been continuing to do this exact thing the entire time, and in fact it seems like the quantity of examples is steadily increasing. Keep in mind these are only diffs from after the amendment thread in September when he was told by two arbitrators to stop. There are many diffs of this kind of behavior from before September, but those were addressed in the previous amendment thread.

• October: Mathsci inserts himself into a discussion that has nothing to do with him in order to bring me up (including the irrelevant details of my relationship).
• November: Mathsci brings this up again (along with the R&I case) in another discussion that has nothing to do with him in order to attack arbitrator Jclemens.
• November & December: Mathsci attempts to prove Boothello (talk · contribs) is a sock of David.Kane (talk · contribs), based on off-wiki research about where David.Kane lives, another example of Mathsci conducting off-wiki sleuthing about editors connected to R&I.
• December: Mathsci inserts himself into another discussion that doesn't involve him in order to push for sanctions against Occam.
• December: Mathsci again bringing up Occam out of the blue.
• January, the most recent occurrence: This time it was to threaten an editor for what looks like a very brief involvement in editing the human intelligence template. Here Mathsci is making real-life, off-wiki claims about me in an attempt to threaten TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) as well as me with sanctions, including threatening us "all" with a community ban. (???)

This recent example is the exact thing that Jclemens told Mathsci to stop doing, and here he's done it around two weeks after being told that. Over the past few months, Mathsci has continued to demonstrate an increasing fixation on R&I, myself, Occam, and off-wiki research about editors connected to R&I. I have attempted to make an agreement with Mathsci to stop doing this: that he leaves me alone entirely (and completely stops mentioning me and Occam on Misplaced Pages), and I'll return the favor. In his last comment on TrevelyanL85A2's talk, he has rejected that request. Unfortunately, I think at this point the only long-term solution here is an official sanction administered by Arbcom that prohibits Mathsci from mentioning me anywhere on Misplaced Pages. It can be mutual or one-sided at Arbcom's discretion. Although Occam is currently blocked, I think it's important for the interaction ban to cover both of us. Mathsci tends to bring us up both in the same context, and I don't want to leave room for gaming by requesting an interaction ban only for myself.

As an aside, I should point out that last time this happened, Coren suggested the issue go to RFC. However, my current topic ban (as per share policy with Occam's IP) prohibits me from starting an RFC about anything connected to R&I. Additionally, the best outcome from an RFC would be that the community requests Mathsci to drop this issue. If Mathsci won't heed Arbcom's advice multiple times, I don't see what it would accomplish for the community to tell him the same thing.

I think it is important that this issue is finally put to bed. He has been told by Arbcom to drop this four times. I don't think a fifth request would accomplish anything at this point if it is not accompanied by an interaction ban. In September, Cool Hand Luke decided against the requested interaction ban because he was confident Mathsci would follow his instructions to drop the issue. Mathsci has not done so. This seems relevant to the vested contributors issue: Mathsci has made a lot of useful contributions to the encyclopedia, but that should not justify repeated second chances to follow Arbcom's advice every time he ignores it.

Additionally I think that history has shown that this kind of behavior, if left unchecked, can drive experienced contributors away from Misplaced Pages or provoke them into acting in unacceptable ways. I really don't want this to progress that far in my case: I enjoy contributing my artwork and knowledge to Misplaced Pages, and Mathsci's behavior regarding me makes me very uncomfortable. Because of the harm behavior like this can do to the project in the long term, I think it's important for Arbcom to stop it before it progresses that far.

New examples

• While this thread is open, Mathsci is currently removing comments by another editor from my user talk. He suspects them of being a sock, but either way I've asked him multiple times to stay off my talk page, and Mathsci should know this is inappropriate. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC) New example from today: -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Mathsci is now attempting to get me blocked at AE while this thread is open. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Response to arbitrators

Admins at AE have disallowed Occam and myself from participating in RfCs related to the R&I topic area, and also advised us against participating in AE threads related to it. Additionally, when Occam brought this up with Jclemens, he suggested that this issue be raised as an amendment. Even if Arbcom decides that AE or RfC is the best place for this request, I have found that the community is generally not hospitable to my posting anywhere about issues related to R&I. The responses I've received from other involved editors in this thread, and Mathsci's current attempt to get me blocked at AE, are good examples of how the community tends to react to these things. A decision that this issue should be handled by the community instead of Arbcom would only prolong the current conflict, without providing a chance of a resolution. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Update 1/22

Risker's comment makes me a little more hopeful that this thread might finally be receiving some attention from Arbcom. There's one other new issue that I'm hoping Arbcom will resolve: whether editors should be allowed to bring up off-wiki personal information about others in public, rather than sending it privately to Arbcom. Based on my understanding of policy and my discussions on this with Jclemens, I don't think doing this is ok. But in this thread Edjohnston (the admin who usually handles R&I related AE reports) was unconvinced that off-wiki personal information can't be handled in public at AE, and that if Arbcom disagrees they should take some formal action in this amendment thread.

Mathsci's posting of personal information about other editors, and other editors' repeating of it, has been going on for a long time. This almost always involves the same group of editors. For example in my evidence in the original R&I case almost 2 years ago, I mentioned that Mathsci was publicly posting what he'd discovered off-wiki about the details of my relationship with Captain Occam, and that after he posted this it began being repeated by Hipocrite and Aprock. No action has ever been taken against any of the editors who do this, so it's continued unabated since then. Here are a few other examples from the past few months:

• Mathsci's speculation about user:Miradre's off-wiki identity
• This edit summary is oversighted now, but I think Arbcom can see it
• This comment was in response to Miradre's request that Mathsci respect his privacy. The comment wasn't itself an invasion of privacy, but I think Mathsci's response to that request is a good indicator of his attitude.

I don't think it's acceptable that this is continuing to go on without any action, and that at least one admin (Edjohnston) is unconvinced it's a problem at all. In addition to the requested interaction ban, I would appreciate it if Arbcom could clarify that off-wiki information like this can only be sent to Arbcom privately, and also do something about admins' general unwillingness to do anything when it's posted in public. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Professor marginalia: You're the only one defending Mathsci here who I think deserves a response. But first I'd like to say something about the people commenting here: this is the exact same group of people who were opposing me and Captain Occam around the time of the original R&I case in 2010. You, Mathsci, Hipocrite, Aprock, Beyond my Ken, Slrubenstein and Enric Naval all belong to this original core group of editors. Arbitrators can verify this with the list of involved parties on the original case page, and these two AN/I threads from April and June 2010. Every person against me here was involved in at least two of these three places (except for Volunteer Marek who got involved more recently). It's been over a year since I interacted with the rest of you, and I find it amazing that you're still showing up to oppose me after all this time.

R&I articles have a problem with sockpuppetry from Mikemikev, everyone knows that. But that doesn't excuse how the rest of you are acting. It's reached the point where every new editor who doesn't immediately ally himself with this core group is assumed to be a sock or meatpuppet, whether there's any evidence for it or not (besides them being new). Yfever is the most recent example. The amount of bad faith that's being assumed about him by you and Hipocrite in this discussion is appalling. Especially since the only evidence I've seen that he's a sock is that he found an old version of that article in Ephery's userspace, even though he could've just found it when FT2 linked to it here. Vecrumba, DGG, and Xxanthippe have all mentioned recently how toxic the editing environment has become because of this atmosphere.

I've looked at some earlier arbitration cases that involved similar issues, and this situation is quite like 2010's climate change case. The conflict that led to that case involved a well-known sockmaster (Scibaby) and an atmosphere of hostility and paranoia where every new user whose viewpoints were vaguely similar to scibaby was assumed to be sock or meat. In that case Arbcom was clear on how they feel about this attitude, and they t-banned several of the editors responsible for it. Some of the principles from that case are very applicable here, especially this and this. But our situation here might be worse, because in the climate change case nobody was conducting off-wiki research and posting their conclusions in public.

It doesn't matter whether you think Mathsci or you have a good reason for doing it. The simple fact is that this is against policy, and Mathsci has been warned by Arbcom to stop it multiple times, most recently just a month ago. As Jclemens said here, nobody should have to answer questions about off-wiki information in public, because outing policy demands that other editors not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Yet you and the other members of your group still continue to confront me and TrevelyanL85A2 about this information on-wiki, knowing full well that we shouldn't answer. For you to say there's nothing wrong with doing this doesn't just contradict policy, it contradicts what Arbcom has said about this many times in the past year. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Roger Davies' proposal

Obviously I don't know what Arbcom has discussed about this in private, but from my perspective there are three problems with this proposal:

• I don't see how this proposal avoids the shortcoming of Philknight's proposed interaction ban. As I understand it, the reason an interaction ban isn't getting support was given by Elen of the Roads: "this is much wider than two editors, and an interaction ban will not even begin to address the main issues of two entrenched camps, and the estimated likelihood that Feragho is a meatpuppet and everyone else is socks." Elen also suggested that if Arbcom decides I'm not a meatpuppet, repeatedly calling me one is a personal attack and should result in a sanction for the editors saying that. But a review that includes only myself, Occam and Mathsci won't address the issue of two entrenched camps, or how editors other than Mathsci are behaving. I think one of the goals of this review should be to improve the editing environment in general.

• This proposal doesn't address the problem of off-wiki information being posted in public. If everyone who's commented in this amendment request is welcome to submit evidence, there's probably going to be just as much of that during the review as there's been in this thread. It also doesn't help to prevent this continuing after the review is finished. Even if Mathsci and I get an interaction ban, there are enough other editors who repeat whatever off-wiki information he's posted about his adversaries that if this issue isn't addressed directly, it will come up again and again. And dealing with it will always have to be Arbcom's job, because admins at AE have never been willing to address it.

• I don't understand why Arbcom should only examine whether my contributions and Occam's are indistinguishable outside of article space. Doesn't the question of whether I should be site-banned need to be based on all of my edits, not just a small portion of them? Mathsci has always treated me and Captain Occam exactly the same way, so the best way to judge if I'm a meatpuppet isn't how I react when I'm placed in exactly the same situation that Occam was in, it's how I conduct myself everywhere else on Misplaced Pages. According to Risker's comment here, the reason Occam was blocked is because of participating in nothing but disputes after returning from wikibreak. Outside of the current request, I've done nothing at Misplaced Pages for the past year except contribute to paleontology and evolution articles. If the review will only compare my editing to Occam's outside of article space, it won't examine the central question of whether I'm engaging in the same behavior that Occam was blocked for.

I still think the best idea here is the one proposed by Elen of the Roads: that Arbcom should review everyone's editing privately. I think a review is only okay if it covers the points I mentioned above. It should have a strict rule about not posting off-wiki evidence in public, it should examine the behavior of the editors other than Mathsci who've also been doing that, and it should implement a principle or remedy to prevent this continuing in the future. On the question of whether I should be site-banned, it also needs to examine all of my own editing, not just one part of it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any point in opening a case or review focused just on myself, Occam and Mathsci when according to his comment here Mathsci wants to be blocked? It means either he'll be a participant against his will, or (if he's given the self-requested block) I'll be the only involved party who isn't blocked. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I echo Maunus's concern below that the scope of the proposed case and motion are both too narrow. I also agree with AGK that opening a full case would result in a lot of unnecessary drama. I think the best compromise might be to have a review, but with a scope that includes more than just three editors.

Here is one possible idea for the scope of a review. Arbcom can take or leave any points as it sees fit.

1. How severe is the problem of sockpuppetry in the R&I topic area?
2. Are the behaviors of Mathsci, Hipocrite, Aprock, and Volunteer Marek justified by the level of sockpuppetry in the topic area?
3. Has Mathsci been harassing other editors?
4. Is it ever acceptable for off-wiki evidence about other editors to be posted publicly, and how should admins handle it when it's posted?
5. Is Ferahgo the Assassin a meatpuppet of Captain Occam and if so, what should be done about it?

I think the question of whether Mathsci's behavior constitutes harassment should include how he's treated more people than just me. As Miradre pointed out in his statement, I'm not the only editor who's been subjected to it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Response of Mathsci

If I were to participate in a minicase or review, I would not distinguish between the edits of Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin, following his site ban. I could imagine briefly summarising general issues that have arisen following the closure of the last case, which are unrelated to content editing. I could also imagine that users actively editing the article could suggest ways in which recurring problems might be handled more efficiently. I have no ideas about that nor do I have any specific suggestions concerning Ferahgo the Assassin/Captain Occam, beyond various bits of common sense. I personally have no interest in the subject but, as with articles like Pacific Union College and Southern Adventist University which I watch without editing, I can usually pick out with a fair degree of accuracy ipsocks or sockpuppets of banned users such as Mikemikev or Tholzel. Off-wiki attack pages are not something that can usually be handled on wikipedia. They can, however, sometimes indicate that there is a problem somewhere. I would also support any proposal by Roger Davies to limit the way such a case/review would be conducted so as to avoid the mess seen in WP:ARBR&I. That case was also disrupted by sockpuppets (of Echigo mole and Jagz). Mathsci (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will answer some of the questions here that do not involve issues concerning the shared account:

1. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?

Answer: Yes. (a) Echigo mole, a serial wikistalker for three years now, who has disturbed this arbcom page at least 6 times and has attempted to troll on article space pages, including most recently mathematics articles. Some of his edits have involved outing. (b) Mikemikev, a banned user who uses racist and antisemitic language on and off wikipedia. Abritrators and oversighters have had to disappear account names which have been open outing; an arbitrator had to remove diffs from ANI in an unrelated discussion where an ipsock of Mikemikev wrote "I agree with anythying that says." That was in place for a day or two. Mikemikev has created an attack page on commons, subsequently deleted by Philippe Beaudette through the help of Moonriddengirl, which he had posted on my talk page. In addition he has posted pages on Stormfront about "Misplaced Pages Jews" and has several times attempted to post an attack article on ED.ch.

2. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I area?

Answer: Yes. Unless I am mistaken, all SPI/CU requests initiated by me concerning sockpuppetry in this area have related to Mikemikev. He has created multiple named sock accounts in this area, some of them aimed at attacking individuals. Examples of other individuals: RLShinyblingstone ], MarginaliaSucks (talk · contribs) . Problematic names: Juden Raus, Suarneduj. Mikemikev managed to control himself a little while he was on wikipedia, but racist/antisemitic postings went on beforehand on the web and continue now with the same username. Several copyvios by sockpuppets of Mikemikev have been deleted from commons at my request. As another editor pointed out recently, he is now editing in parallel at metapedia under the same username. Occasionally he uses proxy accounts in Australia and the Far East. I have also reported reported ipsocks of Tholzel, another banned user. From my point of view, far more disruption has occurred on Europe and Seventh-adventist articles. The most recent problematic accounts there have been Andriabenia, Rejedef and BelloWello.

I do not understand what merit there might be in discussing further persistent sockpuppetry by one community banned user (Mikemikev) and one serial sockpuppeteer (Echigo mole). The problems here would appear to involve proxy editing, not sockpuppetry. (This request for amendment is an example of proxy editing.) Mathsci (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of first 20 edits of Ferahgo the Assassin. Since the outset it would appear that Ferahgo the Assassin's involvement on wikipedia has involved deception: she has engaged since her 13th edit in making attacks on me on behalf of Captain Occam. Here is an analysis of her first 20 edits from 2008 to early May 2010. This is not the behaviour of a defenseless harassed user, but a highly disruptive editor, quite conscious of their own WP:BATTLEFIELD actions and calculated acts of deception:

• First 8 edits 2008-2009
• 9th edit in support of Captain Occam in November 2009 without declaring WP:SHARE.
• 10th edit in support of Captain Occam in November 2009 without declaring WP:SHARE.
• 13th edit on wikipedia: In support of Occam concerning me; mentions Mathsci
• 14th edit on wikipedia: votes against a topic ban on Captain Occam without declaring who she is. mentions Mathsci
• 15th edit, supporting Captain Occam
• 16th edit, supporting Captain Occam mentions Mathsci
• 17th edit, supporting Captain Occam mentions Mathsci
• 18th edit, supporting Captain Occam mentions Mathsci
• 19th edit, supporting Captain Occam
• 20th edit, supporting Captain Occam votes to ban Mathsci from WP:ANI (tag teaming with Mikemikev, Captain Occam and 120 Volt monkey, a sockpuppet of banned user Jagz)

This is just the start of my analysis of her edits. All her edits and those of Captain Occam are likely to be examined in this way, since she has spent 2 months editing/lobbying as a proxy for Captain Occam in what appears to have been a relentless attack on me. Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

In the interests of transparency, do you know TrevelyanL85A2 outside of Misplaced Pages? Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Having done just the most rudimentary amount of googling, it is quite clear that Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2 have a substantial off-wiki relationship, and that off-wiki relationship is in no way related to race and intelligence.

I don't ask my friends to show up at Misplaced Pages articles/processes to support me. Captain Occam should learn to do the same. I suggest that TrevelyanL85A2 be subject to the same topic ban that his friends are subject to. Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

FtA has now stated that some of what I've said is false. I've made two claims - 1. "it is quite clear that Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2 have a substantial off-wiki relationship." 2. "that off-wiki relationship is in no way related to race and intelligence."

Which claim is false, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I didn't pay attention to the Abortion case so I don't know anything about that. But what is the relevance of these two statements of FtA's?:

• November & December: Mathsci attempts to prove Boothello (talk · contribs) is a sock of David.Kane (talk · contribs), based on off-wiki research about where David.Kane lives, another example of Mathsci conducting off-wiki sleuthing about editors connected to R&I.

What does this have to do with Cpt. Occam specifically? It seems like just a complaint that Mathsci is "interfering" with SPAs who push a POV on Race and Intelligence article that was previously supported by Cpt. Occam and FtA. And this is a topic area that has a long history of disruptive SPA and/or sock puppeting. BTW, Boothello WAS topic banned from R&I recently for a mixture of "probable sock puppet of David Kane per duck" and "even if not, being a disruptive tendentious SPA".

• : This time it was to threaten an editor for what looks like a very brief involvement in editing the human intelligence template. Here Mathsci is making real-life, off-wiki claims about me in an attempt to threaten TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs)

Again, what does this have to do with Cpt. Occam and FtA aside from the fact that FtA appears to be annoyed that her off-wiki friends' connections to her and the Captain - i.e. meatpuppets - are pointed out by Mathsci? There'd be no need for any kind of sleuthing if FtA and CO didn't keep recruiting off-wiki buddies in order to what looks like, an intentional circumvention of their topic bans. This wouldn't be that problematic, except that it's FtA who brought this amendment up and cited this for support. Having meat puppets is one thing, requesting that somebody be sanctioned "cuz they pickin' on my meat puppets" is another.

VolunteerMarek 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@FtA this is the exact same group of people who were opposing me and Captain Occam around the time of the original R&I case in 2010. - no, I'm new and I'm also opposing this amendment and/or the meat puppetry edits on R&I.VolunteerMarek 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@Boothello - Boothello you are currently topic banned from R&I topics for being a disruptive SPA and a probable sock puppet of a user (David Kane) who got topic banned during the original R&I case. This RFA is not, or at least WAS NOT, in any way related to yourself, hence it is not relevant discussion result process. Hence you are very clearly in violation of your topic ban, especially since you're using the opportunity to make a statement as a soapbox for stuff on R&I topics. *If* I was as bad as you say I'd have already reported you to AE, as you well deserve. I haven't but I still'd appreciate it if you removed your comment, or someone did it for you.VolunteerMarek 16:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on motion by Volunteer Marek

I got to echo aprock's statement on this, though let me add a bit more incredulity. Seriously, this particular amendment is an *easy* one. And it took you almost two months to come up with something totally counter-productive. Basically what the motion is doing, is giving FtA and Captain Occam, not to mention all the sock puppets, meat puppets, and other disruptive accounts that have been plaguing the topic area for so long, a green light to recruit even more meat puppets, to further harass Mathsci on deviantart or other websites, and to step up the whole POV pushing campaign.

Sorry, but I wanted it noted that as a result of this motion I'm having some very serious concerns over the basic competency of some members of the committee. At the very least put in some language in there about all the sock puppets and meat puppets, including those recruited by FtA and CO - that's the problem here, not the fact that Mathsci found them.VolunteerMarek 19:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me add that it is painfully obvious that the numerous statements made by editors familiar with the subject have been completely ignored in the drafting of this motion. These include statements by Mathsci himself, by myself, by Hipocrite, by Aprock, Beyond My Ken, Enric Naval, Professor marginalia and Slrubenstein. Is there any point what so ever in non-arbitrators bothering to comment on ArbCom pages? Even by (low) past standards I've never seen the opinion of so many respected editors so completely ignored.VolunteerMarek 20:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Phil

Well, the straight forward thing is to simply reject the proposed amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to tie Mathsci's hands and so make it easier for CO and FtA to meat puppet around their topic bans. All you have to say in response is "NO".

Of course, if you really wanted to go after the issue in the topic area, then you'd have to consider how best to deal with all the meat puppets that keep popping up with clockwork precision. That would be harder and involve more work. And yes I think/agree it would be outside the scope of this amendment.VolunteerMarek 19:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Elen

Elen, I might be getting confused here, but I believe that FtA is already topic banned from the area exactly because of her proxying for Captain Occam and the meat-puppeting thing. Basically what happened is that after Captain Occam got topic banned he got FtA to meat puppet for him. Then Mathsci pointed out that these two are linked in RL and so the ArbCom extended Captain Occam's topic ban to FtA.

At that point the two of them began recruiting their OTHER friends to meat puppet (Trevelyen and others). At the same time they engaged in some sour grapes type mockery and harassment of Mathsci on the Deviantart website and other places. Honestly, this was pretty stupid of them because it made it easy to track down the new meat puppets they had recruited. So Mathsci pointed it out.

Then - the point we're at now - CO and FtA got pissed that their not-so-smart meat puppets were obvious and that their obviousness was pointed out by Mathsci. Hence, she/they filed this amendment to prevent Mathsci or anyone else from interfering with the meat puppeting.

It's an obvious attempt to game the topic bans, which is exactly why above I said that the decision on this amendment should be "simple". It's a meat puppet of a topic banned editor, who was banned herself for her meat puppeting, bitching about the fact that further attempts to circumvent the topic ban by recruiting even more meat puppets are being interfered with by Mathsci. I mean, seriously, the whole request for the amendment screams "WP:GAME!!!!!!"

It was filed in bad faith, it's ridiculous on its merits, and simply rejecting the amendment oughta be the least that the committee does in this case. Instead we have some members of the committee actually taking it seriously. *Slap my head*.

Let me repeat this: Feragho the Assasin is ALREADY topic banned from this area because she was ALREADY found to be meat puppeting for Captain Occcam. The question as to whether or not she is being instructed by him in her edits has already been settled - the two were acting in concert. The question is about FURTHER/NEW meat/sock puppets.

If you do really want to do something about this, then yes, a site ban for both or either one of them should be considered. Honestly, anyone who files an amendment along the lines of "user X is interfering with my ongoing disruption of the Misplaced Pages, and my attempts to circumvent sanctions which have been placed on me, please make him stop!" deserves some kind of sanction. I mean, the dishonesty itself oughta warrant something.VolunteerMarek 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davis

Yes, you got it, except for the fact that FtA is ALREADY topic banned because of her meat puppeting. Yes, CO and FtA's edits are more or less indistinguishable. That's why CO's topic ban was extended to FtA. All that is given. The issue now is that they got some of their OTHER friends to keep on meat puppetin'. And they're mad that Mathsci pointed it out.

It seems like you're suggesting that FtA be topic banned because she's a meat puppet of Captain Occam. Of course. But that has ALREADY been done. Have I mentioned that this whole amendment is ridiculous?VolunteerMarek 00:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

One thing which COULD be done to improve the atmosphere in the topic area would be to put a short-list of core articles (R&I, History of R&I, couple others - for example, books by Rushton and Lynn) on permanent semi-protection. The amount of blatant sock puppeting by banned users on these pages reaches obnoxious levels - the problem is that there's numerous potential culprits, so even as you know that *someone* is being naughty, you can't always pin point which one of them is doing it.

This wouldn't prevent the sock puppeting nor the meat puppeting completely - the IP sock puppets could go to the trouble of creating accounts and managing a given number of edits - but it would raise the (marginal) costs of engaging in such activity and so at least lower it somewhat. At the same time, it would be a fairly straight forward and sensible solution (of the "don't make perfect the enemy of the good" kind) which would not necessitate all the time costs of a full blown AC case.VolunteerMarek 21:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to Aprock

Aprock, when I type in "Bruce Lahn, Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray" into google search the first hit I get is this , which, just to clarify things helpfully defines "Racist: Someone more interested in truth than in political correctness". But I guess it could've been VDARE.VolunteerMarek 00:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by aprock

Over the last two years, at least four confirmed off-wiki associates of Captain Occam have joined the project to edit in support of him in the topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I. Given this long history of WP:MEAT it seems counterproductive to restrict discussing him, or his associates, when trying to determine the nature of present disruptions. aprock (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I would urge the committee to take this issue seriously -- not the request for amendment, which is frivolous in that it seeks to amend something which does not exist -- but the issue of Captain Occam and his continuing disruption of Misplaced Pages through proxies, notably FtA. CO's site ban should be extended to any editor who acts as his meatpuppet. Without such an action, the ban becomes a farce, allowing CO virtual access to the site at will. The project will not suffer from the loss of these editors, who contribute little. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that Vercrumba talks about Mathsci going into "attack mode" when it was Ferahgo the Assasin who raised this issue. Can ArbCom do nothing to shut down Captain Occam's proxies? Do you intend to allow him to continue to make fools of you, circumventing your rulings by utilizing his girlfriend and other proxies? For pete's sake, he's spitting in your face and laughing at you. Show some cojones, please shut down this disruptive editor for good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (Part struck as needlessly incendiary and disrespectful. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC))

Could I suggest that a clerk please remove the comment below by The Wozbongulator, who has been indef blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In a recent addendum to her statement, FtA complains about seeing the "exact same group" of editors speaking in opposition to her, and named Professor Marginalia, Mathsci, Hipocrite, Aprock, myself, and Enric Naval. The crux here, however, is that these editors came here on their own, as independent actors, with no on- or off-wiki coordination, while the relevant charge, which negates FtA's request for amendment, is that FtA and others are acting as meatpuppets for the banned Captain Occam, and therefore should be subject to the same editing restrictions as CO is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned that the motion presented to the Committee totally misconstrues the import of this situation. An interaction ban would certainly provide FtA with the muzzle on Mathsci she was looking for, but it does so with very negative consequences for the project, because it removes from the scene one of the primary deterrents to the ongoing meatpuppetry of CO, which is, in point of fact, the problem which needs to be solved. The fact that this unwarranted Request for Amendment sat here for so long with little attention given to it while the Committee was dealing with a number of very complex and time-consuming arbitrations leads me to believe that perhaps there is now something of a rush to clear the decks and get pending matters out of the way, and that this has lead to a fundamental misreading of what's important here. I strongly suggest that the Committee dig a little bit deeper into this, because it's not a run-of-the-mill dispute between two editors which can be solved with an interaction ban, it's actually a ongoing slow-motion attack on the principles under which we operate -- in particular, NPOV -- by a group of concerted civil POV-pushers. That is, in my estimation, an extremely serious problem which needs to be addressed, and I am distressed that the motion presented to the Committee does not address it, instead approaching the case in a very superficial way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Elen - There is no "personal attack" in characterizing FtA as a meatpuppet of CO, since the Committee has already determined her status by extending CO's topic ban to her. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret to observe that Mathsci thrives on going into attack mode. When I first became interested in R&I on-Wiki, Mathsci set upon me in no uncertain terms and brought up completely unrelated events in a blatant character assassination attempt. I can go back to provide diffs, this was quite a while ago, but the acrimony exhibited toward me at that time disposes me to believe Mathsci has serious ownership and self-superiority issues that no administrative action will ever solve. When an editor sets upon another, that is not frivolous, and whatever one thinks apart from the attack is immaterial to the attack itself (e.g., the object of the attack is a criminal and deserve what they get). If you ever want WP be a kinder gentler place, start with the attackers not their victims. Whether or not you approve of the victim is not material to the complaint here. If you think it is material, you're part of the self-righteous poison permeating WP. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To some of the other comments, in my dealings with Mathsci, my issue has not been his content but his incessantly combative attitude including scurrilous personal attacks based on a presumption that anyone disagreeing to any degree is an enemy to be vanquished, not to mention seeing conspiracies at every turn. No amount of positive content justifies the rest of us putting up with that sort of crap. If we want to attract new, enthusiastic, collegial editors to WP, then Mathsci's attitude has to go. If he can't divorce himself from his attitude, well, then... VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Xxanthippe

I have to endorse generally the concerns of User:Vecrumba about the toxic editing environment in this area. My own views on the R&I issue are here. Surprisingly they have never been criticized. I live in hope. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

So, we keep having more meatpuppets canvassed to the R&I area. Probably brought by Captain Occam or by people in his environment. And Mathsci keeps removing them. Understandably, Captain Occam is pissed. And Mikemikev keeps trying to insert racist content via socks. And Mathsci keeps removing those socks. I don't see how this is supposed to result in a topic ban for Mathsci. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@PhilKnight, you are supposed to encourage admins to issue sanctions against meatpuppets, the people who keep recruiting them, and the people who keep disrupting wikipedia to advocate their POV, even if they are civil POV-pushers.

You have to encourage admins to ban POV-pushing disruptive editors even if they are being perfectly civil. Good editors burn out when admins take no actions against civil POV pushers. It shouldn't have taken so many AE requests to get Occam+Ferahgo banned, and it shouldn't take so much effort to ban further disruptive editors that push the same POV in the same disruptive way.

And then thank Mathsci for keeping an eye on socks, and thank Professor Marginalia and others for continuing to improve the articles despite all the disruption. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Professor marginalia

The only reason I have for commenting in this is my mounting frustration with proxy disruptions in the involved articles. And the disruption is considerable — two of the articles especially, Race and intelligence and Race (classification of humans), are in awful shape. While povpushing puppetry isn't completely to blame for this, the exertion necessary to investigating them and their suspect edits (to keep the situation from getting worse) is so all-consuming editors are essentially too burned out to do much more or too intimidated to commit an opinion (given the likelihood there's a banned puppet or other bad character behind it all) so there's not much progress, imo. The R/I arbitration came about due to disruptive editing practices that included canvassing and tag teaming, misuse of sources and original research, forum shopping and incivility. Those of us editing these articles out in the open are judged by our edits now and our edits prior arbitration. But if those editors who were sanctioned are granted a handicap, ie rewarded, when they continue their crusade through proxies, then what's the point? Why are any of us to pay any time or mind to the process or results of arbitration?

I have no opinion whether or not an interaction ban is warranted between Mathsci and Ferahgo for conflicts beyond those involving the R/I articles. But forcryingoutloud....this was triggered by Mathsci's firmly worded cautioning of TrevelyanL85A2 who after a hiatus in the aftermath of earlier proxy editing accusations had returned to an R/I dispute. Then Trevelyan traipses over to Ferahgo's talk page to solicit her input, then she battles Mathsci on Trevelyan's page, and what follows between them since is a bunch of yada yada about who accuses who of what, in which venue it belongs, both of them shooting a few ineffectual arrows against the other about stuff outside the R/I issue.

Trevelyan was a recruit to this mess from off-wiki, along with several other proxies. It's a DUH! for anybody with a base measure of common sense who is following this goofy trainwreck, and google, to double-check themselves, just to verify, to make sure their DUH meter isn't on the fritz. (If this needs revisiting, I will provide diffs) Any "personal information" that's been repeated about Ferahgo, Trevelyan and Captain Occam now in accusations against Mathsci result from Trevelyan's re-entry to the R/I involved articles, and the both of them (Trevelyan and Ferahgo) wikilawying a way to sanction Mathsci for incivility.

I agree Mathsci's tone in remarks in disputes like this can sometimes seem provocative, but they have resulted in far less disruption in these articles than the obsequiousness adopted by topic banned Captain Occam and his proxies. Mathsci's been an unqualified benefit when it comes to identifying proxies. It seems to me that if Captain Occam-who is topic banned-and his recruits (1st generation, 2nd generation et al)-would move on and quit trying to game these articles, then wikipedia wins. By the same token, it seems to me that if Mathsci is sanctioned such that he cannot lend help with the proxy problem, then wikipedia loses. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ferahgo-I suggest you refocus all your complaints about our behaviors in R/I to concentrate instead on whatever's bothering you about us that may be occurring outside the R/I involved articles. You're topic banned from R/I. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@Boothello-So we have two topic banned users now who've been following Yfever. It feels like reliving Groundhog Day, again. And again. An AE action was initiated against you on Dec 13, fairly or not involving Ephery, , Yfever soon follows to R/I , and first links to then recreates the POVforked and AFD'd article Ephery userfied? Professor marginalia (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

New comment

I'm more than a little concerned that the main problem is being obscured and potentially made worse here. The core of the problem is that disruptions continue to flow in and from the R/I articles via Captain Occams' proxies long after his topic ban. In many cases, these disruptions seem orchestrated to achieve some strategic advantage like some World of Warcraft raid (eg, Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/WeijiBaikeBianji wherein the request was filed by one of the new puppets, and more than half the 11 endorsing or certifying it were currently topic banned or their puppets!) How many times and in how many ways has he/they tried to wikilawyer a protective shield for the proxying? It feels like that's what's going on again this time. Clearly TrevelyanL85A2 is a recruit whose first edits in this area were coordinated tag teaming between Captain Occam, Ferahgo and another clearly recruited puppet, probably two. Every time a puppet is caught, a new set game moves play out criticizing the person trying to fix it. Captain Occam's also played the innocent, the victim, when the evidence was handled privately And furnished bull stories like to sell it. Short of requiring that Captain Occam must give his personal permission first, before one is allowed to object to any of his proxies, these games will unfold the next time too. And if given the opening to play an interaction ban here into a tactical advantage implying TrevelyanL85A2, and others new and old, are free now to go on proxying in R/I, he/they will take it, believe me. So any remedy provided now should, at the very least, and as directly and firmly as possible, nail the door shut to more gaming with proxies as transparently obvious as this one. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Boothello

I don't care who gets banned from interacting with who, but there is no mistaking the editing environment in this area is abysmal. And I think the amount of cabalism on the topic is obvious to anyone who edits the articles and doesn't throw in with the dominant group. I had no idea that most of the people taking Mathsci's side here have been working as a group since the original R&I case. Marek joined them more recently, maybe a year ago. Any time a member of this group is in a dispute about R&I anywhere, its guaranteed several of the others will show up for support, even if the dispute is caused by one of them being disruptive.  

One recent example of how this goes is hipocrite's disruption. In these edits he removed several paragraphs with the dishonest edit sum "not a reliable source." The content he removed was cited to peer reviewed journals Psychology, Public Policy and Law and The Open Psychology Journal as well as books from publishers Praeger, Methuen Publishing, Pergamon Press and W. W. Norton & Company. These are obviously RS, and Hipocrite's claim that they weren't was just a flimsy justification to remove content he disagreed with. I opposed him on this - as I had before on similar things, and during these edits he took his dispute with me to AE. And in that, Mathsci, Volunteer Marek, Professor Marginalia and Aprock showed up to support Hipocrite and advocate a topic ban for me. This happened amazingly fast: Mathsci showed up at AE to support Hipocrite less than an hour after the thread was posted, even before I'd seen the thread myself. So I got topic banned, and Hipocrite wasn't even warned.

It's been mentioned that AE threads on R&I are usually handled by EdJohnston, and one other admin who handles them sometimes is WGFinley. But the bigger problem is that both of these admins just react to majority opinion instead of looking carefully at diffs. A recent example is the report on Yfever at AE, which contained zero diffs, just a link to Yfever's contributions. Finley said at first this wasn't actionable, but then he went ahead and warned Yfever that although he wasn't being sanctioned, "if you continue tendentious editing as listed in the report, you could be." What does he mean, "as listed in the report"? The only "evidence" in the report was Yfever's contributions and some vitriol from members of the cabal. But this is all it takes at AE to convince an admin that someone's editing is tendentious!  

Cabalism + the nature of admins who handle R&I requests at AE = any members of the "group" can act with impunity. All they have to do to ensure AE threads will go in their favor is support one another and make uninvolved editors feel unwelcome, so there will be no one to disagree with them. Recall that Mathsci, Hipocrite and Marek have all been sanctioned in the past for the same behavior they're now displaying here. Mathsci was sanctioned for his incivility and battleground attitude in the original R&I case, Hipocrite was sanctioned for battlefield conduct in the Climate Change case, and Volunteer Marek (aka Radeskz) has been blocked by Sandstein for making public accusations of bad faith that rely on off-wiki evidence (which as Sandstein noted can only be sent to arbitrators). But what I can gather from the current situation is that recidivism in this topic area doesn't matter, because it's far more important to care about off-wiki evidence on someone who made one single edit to the human intelligence template. Is that what passes for logic in this topic now? 

I really, really hope that the arbitrators examine this situation carefully. Because it isn't just one or two editors that cause the problem here, the big picture issue is with the nature of the entire editing environment. That isn't to say that the behavior of certain individuals shouldn't be dealt with, of course.Boothello (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• @Marek R&I topic bans apparently don't extend to arbitration pages. As far as I can see, nobody objected to Mathsci commenting on requests for amendment or clarification before his topic ban was lifted. I can also see from one of Feragho's diffs that Jclemens has said topic bans don't prevent commenting here in general. That applies to me as much as to everyone else.

• To other commenters: this request began about Feragho and Mathsci, but then the thread turned toward the nature of the editing environment. Xxanthippe mentions it, Professor Marginalia commented on how Mathsci's behavior is justified because of disruption from socks, and Beyond my Ken said there's no coordination causing the same group of editors to show up supporting one another again and again in R&I disputes. These things are really painting a picture of the topic are that's far from complete, and the arbs deserve to have the complete picture. There are editors such as Xxanthippe who say they avoid the topic area because they can't stand the editing environment, there are other editors like Yfever who are treated with the worst WP:BITE I've ever seen, and anyone who thinks there are no problems besides socks is just sticking their head in the sand.Boothello (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Slrubenstein

I have little to add to the statements by Aprock and Marginalia. Matchsci has added considerable encyclopedic content to articles relating to race and intelligence, in ways that fully comply with our core policies of NPOV, NOR and V. Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and others have generally edit-warred to push one particular POV. It is unsurprising that they and others (e.g. Xanthippe) try to paint Mathsci as pushing a POV but this is not a clash between two POVs, it is a clsh between a collection of people pushing one POV versus Matchsci and other editors who seek to give due weight to the different significant scientific points of view with appropriate context.

This conflict has certainly involved sockpuppets and meatpuppets and has already gone through arbitration. The most one can say about Mathsci is that she is zealous in ensuring that prior ArbCom decisions be enforced rigorously. If she has ever been excessive, well, this calls for clarification by ArbCom. But so far no one has provided any examples of her doing anything beyond attempting to ensure that ArbCom decisions are enforced stringently.

The proposed ammendment is the most disingenuous thing I have ever seen. Ferrahgo is upset that MathSci is vigelant in enforcing ArbCom decisions. If Ferrahgo ever thinks that MathSci is overzealous or wrong, she should deal with it the wikiway, through discussion. Beyond this, it is just ludicrous to topic-ban one of the best editors we have in the sense that this editor has spent considerable time researching the scholarship on race and intelligence and adding neutral and encyclopdic content. Mathsci is not the only editor ho has added much important content, but if we were to remove the content she has added it would significantly degrade the quality of a number of articles. This is not the editor who should be topic-banned. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin — so you have now added me to your list of co-conspirators against you. So what? I am sure that the members of ArbCom are familiar with a pattern that is pervasive at Misplaced Pages. Our articles fall into roughly three groups. First, articles on hot topics, like Justin Bieber and Barack Obama which may or may not be contentious, but which attract such a large number of editors all of whom have access to reliable sources, that sifferent points of view cancel one another out, or editors are able to work out compromises, and we end up with fairly detailed articles that actually comply with NPOV. Second, articles on obscure and uncontroversial topics like Emile Durkheim that, sadly for an encyclopedia, attract a very small number of editors. If we are luckly one or two of them actually know more than what one might have learned in an undergraduate sociology course or cribbed from other encyclopedias. The result is a highly stable, but also pretty superficial, article.

And then there is the third kind of article, like Race & Intelligence. As with Emile Durkheim, this is a topic that relatively few Wikipedians have expertise on or even have access to the most reliable sources, namely, recent books and peer-reviewed journal articles by psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists, and who have enough contact with active researchers to be able to assess what weight to give different views and to understand the contexts that produce different views. Unlike Emile Durkheim, however, this article also attracts people with very strong points of view and who are fanatical about ensuring that their point of view be given the greatest weight. That is because this is one of those articles that is on a topic that is both of real interest to academics, and is also of interest to the general public because it touches on issues of importance to the general electorate (e.g. school funding, affirmative action). It is not at all surprising that the result is two groups of editors who regularly clash.

Ferahgo the Assassin, Xanthippe and others wish to paint this as a clash between two points of view. Or they will claim that they represent "the truth" and the co-conspirators who oppose them are pushing come communist point of view. Perhaps you may think I am doing the same - presenting MathSci and Professor Marginalia as representing the truth and Ferahgo the Assassin and others as POV-pushers. Maybe when it comes to this third group of articles, it is inevitable that editors on either side of a conflict will present themselves as relying on the most reliable sources and their opponents as POV-pushers. The point of this comments i not to classify Ferahgo the Assassin or MathSci as one or the other. I am just pointing out that Race and Intelligence falls under the third category of articles, and such articles are always plagued by such conflicts. These are precisely the kinds of articles that led us to create ArbCom in the first place. Unlike the second class of articles they constantly attract controversy, and unlike the first class of articles, the wikiness of this project, in which a mass of editors cancel out each editor's limitations or weaknesses, the third class of articles are centers of intractable conflicts. These conflicts are almost always between two groups of editors, and it does not matter (in my view) whether the members of a group are all friends, or simply happen to have comparable educational backgrounds and access to academic sources.

ArbCom has to arbitrate the case based on the actual edits and consider whether those edits express a good-faith effort to comply with core policies, or do not. This is the only issue. My own view is that MathSci conduct towards other editors does not reflect personal malice but rather a desire to ensure that past ArbCom decisions be enforced strictly, and her edits to articles reflects her attempt to represent accurately the most reliable sources, and to put academic debates in their proper context. Am I right or am I wrong? It is for ArbCom to decide, but they should not decide this based on my own history of edits, they should decide it based on MathSci's history of edits (and, if approprioate, Ferahgo the Assassin's history of edits). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Motion by Aprock

I'm confused as to what problem this motion is supposed to solve. Could one of the nominators explain how such a broad interaction ban helps the project instead of hurting it. From the best I can tell the pros and cons look something like:

• pro: Ferahgo is no longer bothered by Mathsci's investigations into issues of meat puppetry and off wiki harassment by her and others.
• con: Ferahgo and her clique of off-wiki associates can now recruit disruptive editors more freely.

Given the degree to which this topic area is besieged by disruptive editors (12+1 new editors warned since case close 10 months ago), an implicit invitation for more disruptive editors seems counterproductive. aprock (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

response to PhilKnight: The broad thrust of Ferahgo's amendment is to restrict enforcement by involved editors. A number of arbitrator diffs she supplies illustrate unconventional views on enforcement. While the diffs are by individual arbitrators (not arbcom), they show a creeping sentiment in arbcom that enforcement by involved editors is a part of the problem, not part of the solution. The difficulties with this sentiment are threefold:

• How is an editor going to understand the disruption if they are uninvolved? Do we assume there are talk page lurkers who are prepared to dive into controversial topic enforcement without ever having participated?
• If such a lurker does surface, after that first enforcement action they are no longer uninvolved, and thus further enforcement actions initiated by them is become problematic.
• In the end, if enforcement is a problem, then how can there be any solution?

The implications here are sufficiently broad, and the nuances are sufficiently complex, that it seems difficult to solve this in the context of only WP:ARBR&I. I suggest either the status quo of involved enforcement be maintained, or a new case be created to address this complexity. aprock (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Miradre/AO. There's nothing quite like presenting a who's who of researchers touted on VDARE by Steve Sailer to confirm the idea that you've got a bag full of racists you're ready and raring to promote. aprock (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Acadēmica Orientālis/Miradre

I am not sure what Ferahgo the Assassin aims to achieve with this amendment? Ultimately a lifting of the topic ban? If so, then this is most likely pointless. The there-are-no-genetic-differences editor group has complete control of the topic area and will most likely continue to have this. In principle all editors presenting other views have been removed. In many cases the offenses seem rather mild but where the moralistic fallacy and emotional revulsion cause disproportionate and unequal responses. This is of course a mirror of the larger poisonous atmosphere in this area where even a Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA like James D. Watson can be fired for saying the not politically correct thing in this area. When this can happen to such a prominent person then a lesser one of course has no chance. So if the aim is to ultimately add more views to the area under the topic ban, then my advise is to just avoid this area. If on the other hand the purpose is to stop general harassment by Mathsci I can certainly sympathize. I have myself experience of how Mathsci can become fixated by someone he seems to dislike and of how he earlier started following me around Misplaced Pages to oppose me on articles and topics not related to race and intelligence, started creating complaints on many different noticeboards, and started attempting many outings. (Disclaimer: I of course respect the talk page consensus and Misplaced Pages policies on all race and intelligence articles and in fact I have no intention to now or in the future edit the core articles in this area except making some occasional talk page comments. My editing is now and will in the future be in other areas.) Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Maunus. I have not used any other account except Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis for years which is what I have stated earlier. If you wish to accuse me of sockpuppetry, then please start a WP:RFCU. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Maunus. Metapedia? No, people disagreeing with the there-are-genetic-group-differences-in-IQ view do not have to be extremist right-wing white supremacists. Like James D. Watson, Bruce Lahn, Gregory Cochran, and so on. That attack is the easy ad hominem way to dismiss factual arguments. You are still insinuating that I am using sockpuppets so please start a WP:RFCU if you have any evidence. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Maunus. I am not aware or member of any conspiracy or cabal and have no private communication with anyone regarding the subject area. On the other hand, there-are-no-genetic-differences editor group always quickly turn out to support one another in votes, talk page discussions, arbitration enforcements, noticeboards, and so on. This group has successfully banned almost everyone opposing them and has complete control of the articles which as a result has little resemblance to the scientific literature and ongoing scientific discussion in this area. That you declare your own non-hereditarian POV to be the "mainstream" demonstrates the state of affairs quire nicely. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Maunus. No, the hereditarian view, or more correctly the partly-hereditarian view, is not the mainstream view. Neither is it fringe a view. There is an ongoing, unresolved scientific debate in this area. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Maunus: Regarding the usual ad hominem attack against the partially-hereditarian researchers I will just note that many are not connected to the Pioneer Fund in any way. Like Bruce Lahn, Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray and many others. Many American anthropologists reject that races exist at all but the situation is different for non-US anthropologists and also for American anthropologists such as forensic anthropologists which successfully identify race in their daily work. There is no consensus among psychologists or geneticists on the R&I issue. I have recently on the talk page of the R&I article mentioned two recent peer-reviewed review articles regarding the views among geneticists which state that the issue is currently unresolved and that have long discussions regarding what to do when in the near future what may be definitive genetic evidence turns up and support the partially-hereditarian position. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Maunus

While there would be an obvious benefit for Ferahgo personally if Mathsci was to be prohibited from monitoring her actions or seeking sanctions against her when he deems there might be a case for that, I do not think that the benefit for the community is as obvious. The fact is that the topic matter that mostly preoccupies in the past has attracted attention from Ferahgo and Occam has been a frequent scene of foul play of various sort, and that Mathsci has been particularly adept in unveiling it - though admittedly sometimes using methods that are perhaps questionable. If Mathsci is not keeping an eye on this matter then who will be? And how will we avoid that the minefield that is R&I be overrun by puppets of various kinds? I think the benefit to the encyclopedia of having Mathsci free to investigate and comment on perceived foul play is a greater good than Ferahgo's peace of mind in this case. I think that the problems should be adressed by someone should be watching Mathsci and telling him when he is crossing the boundaries of acceptable conduct. The problem of abusive watchers is not solved by firing the watcher, but by having the public eye watching them.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Conduct Review: It will be ineffectual if it is limited to Mathsci and Ferahgo/Occam. There are deeper issues that underlie present conduct patterns, in which many other regulars are involved. Miradre/Academica Orientals and Boothello both have very similar editing patterns to Ferahgo/Occam for example, Miradre has admitted to having an other undisclosed main account (he says he doesn't edit R&I topics with it, but I am hard pressed for good faith at this point). I think any review would have to extend tis scope to cover many more editors to be able to show whether Mathsci's behavior is reasonable or not.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem both with the proposed Review and the proposed case is the same: the questions asked look only at three persons' conduct. This scope is much too limited to be of any lasting help. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

@Miradre/Academica Orientalis: I was of course referring to this statement, in which you state that you started ther Miradre account specifically because you didn't want you main account associated with the edits you do in the R&I area.I don't think you are socking, but on the other hand it is odd that so many accounts feel the need to dedicate most of their editing time to turning this particular area of wikipedia into a mirror of Metapedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@Miradre: What part of "I don't think you are socking" is it that you interpret as an insinuation that you are socking? I think that there is reason to believe that there is off-line recruitment to edit these pages in a way that is not compliant with wikipedias policies, and in ways that are not simply making sure that the dissident voices are heard, but rather a case of systematically misrepresenting the relative weight of those viewpoints, systematically bloating the relative presence of hereditarian positions relative to mainstream positions in the articles, and to do so through disruptive strategies that use repetitive argumentation (IDIDNTHEARTHAT), through cherry picking and tendentious use of evidence wit the intended effect of causing attrition of opposing viewpoints over time. I don't know if you are involved in online recruitment, but I am pretty sure someone is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@having discussed this to death with you before this is going to be my last statement on this issue in which I maintain that when you survey the literature you are viewing the literature from a peculiar vantage point if you think it gives more credence to the hereditarian viewpoint than WP does currently. Also I would note that it seems incongruent that proponents of the hereditarian viewpoint can simultaneously occupy a stance in which it is mainstream and one in which it is the oppressed minority.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

@Miradre. (going back on my promise of course) an ongoing dispute like the climate controversy yes - where a small group with ample funding and political agendas are taking on the established consensus in three academic disciplines (the validity of Race as a biological construct may in some sense be claimed to be "an ongoing debate" though even that is questionable, R&I really isn't). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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).

• Should this section be archived? NW (Talk) 02:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Under the provisions of the final decision (as amended), could this matter not be referred as normal to the Arbitration Enforcement process? It seems to me that the interaction ban, if warranted, could be made as a discretionary sanction. Such a method of proceeding seems to me far preferable to any direct action by this Committee, which by its nature would probably be protracted and unpleasant. AGK 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
• Mathsci, I'm not sure your responses here are consistent with WP:SHARE. Would you mind re-responding to the concerns only with respect to Ferahgo? We're not here to re-hear Occam's case, I trust both parties understand. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'll be interested to see what others more experienced in this case have to say, though my initial feeling is that concerns about harassment might be better dealt with via RfC. The community can deal with harassment and potential outing matters, blocking if appropriate. SilkTork 00:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
• I'm recusing on this one as I recused on the original case and also am the administrator who most recently blocked Captain Occam. Risker (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Sincere apologies for the delay in responding. This has been discussed on the arb mailing list, and based on that discussion, I think an interaction ban between Ferahgo and Mathsci is a viable solution to at least part of this problem. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• To push things forward, do you want to propose a motion to that effect? AGK 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Posted at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Interaction ban between Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Moved to the subsection right below, per Roger Davies' request. NW (Talk) 19:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could the editors who have indicated the proposed motion isn't a good idea, indicate what should be done instead? A full arbitration case, a Request for Comments, or something else? PhilKnight (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion: Interaction ban between Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci

Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Mathsci (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Misplaced Pages, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party except on Arbitration Enforcement and Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.

Support

PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks to Volunteer Marek and Aprock for their replies. Striking my vote as it would appear the issues are too complex to be handled by a motion. Or in other words, I'm beginning to think a full case is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Striking. Jclemens (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Not the best way forward here. I'd support opening a new case to look into the topic area. Courcelles 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Recuse

Comments by arbitrators

• Commenting for the moment, although likely to oppose - this is much wider than two editors, and an interaction ban will not even begin to address the main issues of two entrenched camps, and the estimated likelihood that Feragho is a meatpuppet and everyone else is socks. If the committee and others believe that Feragho edits in accordance with Occam's instructions, then ban her. If they believe she does not, then continually alleging it is a personal attack and should result in a sanction for the editor(s) persistently making that allegation. Simply interaction-banning Feragho and one of the editors who says it isn't going to get us much further. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Elen, what do you think is needed here? Should we open a full case? PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that one group of editors believes that Feragho types what Occam tells her, and that most of the other editors are socks. That's what needs addressing. If it requires a full case, then it requires a case, but I would have thought that reviewing the Misplaced Pages space contributions of Occam and Ferahgo (Arbcom can review things for themselves we have recently established - they don't need a bunch of editors presenting conflicting denouncements) plus a thorough SPI and review of previous SPIs (to see how serious the hosiery problem really is) would be a better place to start.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The wording also needs amending - the net effect of using one long sentence instead of three short ones is to create a wikilawyer's paradise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you think you can improve the motion by a copyedit - even if you're not going to support it - then, I suggest you go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• If I think it's likely to garner any support, I will. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Before I vote, I'd like to inquire what is the basis for the proposer's conclusion that Mathsci should be restricted. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I share that concern. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Setting the issues around the interaction ban itself aside for a moment, the concern here surely must be that, in Misplaced Pages space, the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam appear to be indistinguishable. For example, Ferahgo is even apparently advocating (proxying?) for Captain Occam about the scope of the interaction ban. It is not the point of WP:SHARE to let indistinguishable accounts continue to edit because they insist different hands are on the keyboard.  Roger Davies 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To open and conduct a Review

The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Race and Intelligence case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following points:

1. Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
2. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
3. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
4. Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
5. Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Procedure: The Review will be a simplified form of a full case, the named parties being User:Mathsci; User:Ferahgo the Assassin and User:Captain Occam. Any editor may give evidence providing their evidence is directly relevant to the numbered points above; is supported where appropriate with diffs; and complies with the usual evidence length requirements. Captain Occam is expected to submit his evidence, should he wish to give any, by email, to the Committee. The evidence phase lasts for ten days and will be followed by a decision on the substantive issues by motion. No workshop will be held, though relevant comments may be made on the /Review talk page.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support:

1. We have not held a review for a while but it seems the best compromise between a sprawling amendment/motion and a full case. (Examples: here and here.)  Roger Davies 12:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
2. On balance, I'd prefer opening a full case, however I'm ok with this approach. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
3. I am distinctly uncomfortable with resolving such a complicated issue by motion, because it risks sloppy decision-making. I therefore support a full review (if it complies with the Procedure provision of this motion). AGK 17:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   To be clear, my discomfort would be with handling this by summary motion on this page, and is not with a motion to open a review or a full case (or indeed with the review itself). If anything, I think a full case is less desirable than a review of limited scope. AGK 23:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

4. I'd prefer we ended this as a normal PD (and would really prefer just calling it R&I II and expanding the scope some), rather than a resolution by series of motions.. Courcelles 22:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   For the avoidance of doubt, it will have a normal PD (and that was part of the earlier Reviews). Roger Davies 14:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

5. Second choice per Courcelles; see second motion below. Hersfold 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
6. First choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
7. I can live with this. Given that we haven't used this mechanism since I before I became an administrator, a single trial to see if it is still relevant and/or assess how it can be updated to become relevant once again. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
8. Better than a full case, which is unnecessary and likely to prolong unpleasantries unnecessarily. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The "review" mechanism has not been used in practice since 2007; I see no pressing need to revive it at this point. Kirill  04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   Sure, though this is a good one to revive it for, to see if it will reduce the, um, Springer effect that often attends full cases.  Roger Davies 14:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Motion: To open a new case "Race and Intelligence 2"

The Committee will open a full arbitration case, to be titled "Race and Intelligence 2", focusing on matters broadly arising from the Race and Intelligence case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following points:

1. Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
2. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
3. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
4. Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
5. Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Named parties to the case shall include and be limited to User:Mathsci, User:Ferahgo the Assassin, and User:Captain Occam. Captain Occam is expected to submit his evidence, should he wish to give any, by email, to the Committee. In an effort to expedite the decision process, the evidence and workshop phases shall last one week each.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.

Support:

1. It sounds as though there are concerns to opening a Review as outlined above, with those concerned preferring to open a new case. I echo these concerns, and propose this to resolve the matter as per our usual procedures, but with an expedited timeline to keep in line with the spirit of the motion above. Hersfold 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Better. Courcelles 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
4. First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Kirill  04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
6. Equal preference. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I thought about proposing an identical motion, but on reflection I thought it was unnecessary. We sometimes handle narrow issues like this by summary motion on the requests page, which is wrong in my view. Such a 'review' as Roger proposes means we can deliberate more thoroughly. However, a full case would become a lengthy drama-fest, and is unjustified in the absence of a community request to re-examine the whole topic. This motion proposes to open a second case with no established basis nor scope; and the difference between a review and a full case is not mere nomenclature. Oppose at this time (with copy-edit to replace II with 2 per naming convention). AGK 23:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

   We have previously held that a request for amendment is sufficient to open a full case (cf. Betacommand 3). Kirill  04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   I know we have, but unlike other cases - for instance BC3 - we are not dealing with a narrow dispute about one or a small group of editors. In a full case that focusses "on matters broadly arising from R&I1", we can reasonably expect to have to address broader issues despite the absence of a community request to do so. In all previous, serial cases that relate to content disputes - which are more relevant to this matter than a narrow conduct issue like Betacommand - we have had a clear community request, not a vague feeling that another case "might" be needed; cf. WP:ARBAA2, WP:ARBPIA2, WP:ARBMAC2 - all "sequels", all about wide content areas, and all made by a distinct community request and extensive community input at the requests phase. AGK 09:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, this is true. Funnily enough, it was partly the BC3 travails that lead me to wonder whether revisiting issues isn't better handled as a streamlined, tightly focussed, Review rather than a new case.  Roger Davies 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Avoiding prolonging unpleasantries unnecessarily is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment by Arbitrators: