Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main review page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — Original case page
Review clerks: Mlpearc (Talk) & Tiptoety (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Roger Davies (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 5
2–3 4
4–5 3

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Jurisdiction[edit]

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the Race and Intelligence case.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There's an argument (though an ironic one coming from me) that we could say this with a less legalistic choice of words; but it is certainly true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Advice by individual arbitrators[edit]

2) Arbitration Committee membership does not confer special executive powers on individual arbitrators. While individual arbitrators sometimes provide informal advice based on their general impressions, such advice is not binding and following the advice is not mandatory as only the consensus of the committee has any effect. Where arbitrators are speaking on behalf of the Committee they explicitly say so.

Support:
  1. This probably needs spelling out.  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this probably needs a copy edit, however I support the general idea. Perhaps replace "as the consensus of the committee has any effect" with it "as it is only circumstances where a vote has determined there is sufficient support in accordance with the Arbitration Policy that has any effect." PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a missing "only". How about "as it only decisions of the Committee as a whole that have effect"? That avoids a very long sentence.  Roger Davies talk 16:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. There may be rare emergency situations in which an arbitrator or small group of arbitrators needs to take the bull by the horns and act for a short time with a presumption of correctness; but nothing of that nature is involved here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although "consensus of the committee" is imprecise; we make decisions by majority vote rather than true consensus. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus[edit]

3) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Support:
  1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies talk 19:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Participation[edit]

4) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.

Support:
  1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies talk 19:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes - per WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sockpuppet investigations[edit]

5) The applicable sockpuppetry policy recommends that editors believing that someone is using sock puppets should (i) create a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations or (ii), if personally identifying information is involved, or complex investigation involving established users is required, make a report by email to CheckUsers or the Arbitration Committee. In practice, blatant or obvious sockpuppetry is usually handled informally by uninvolved administrators.

Support:
  1. Just reiterating the obvious,  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Courcelles 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as edited. Proposed further copyedit: "unless the situation is so clear than a formal report is not necessary" or similar. We don't need an SSI every time User:Foovandal is blocked and creates User:Foovandal2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, though strangely policy doesn't explicitly say this. I've added a sentence nevertheless describing the usual custom and practice.  Roger Davies talk 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is correct as far as what the policy says. Whether it should say that is a question beyond the scope of this case. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. (with Roger's copyedits) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not always - concerns have been raised with us via email or privately, which is correct (for instance) if there are RL names involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked this accordingly.  Roger Davies talk 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support with a tweak changing "if personally identifying information is involved" to "if personally identifying information or complex investigation involving established users is involved" (which aligns with current practice) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. If anyone objects, please revert and we can put up the tweaked principle as an alternative version.  Roger Davies talk 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I think Cas is making a valid point here, and I'd support an alternative that incorporates what he's saying. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but this also doesn't cover sensitive situations where odd results/situations/concerns come up with experienced/long time users. Our checkuser policy advises contacting functionaries list (IIRC.... when I can find the link...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just stating the obvious here that this doesn't mean flagging down a passing CU about the "This is well-known vandal X, can you lock the IP down for a while and look for sleepers" situations is improper. There are different ways of flagging down CU attention for those kind of urgent situations. (Just to make clear that this doesn't mean "all non-sensitive checks must be ran throuh SPI) Courcelles 06:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose there are all sorts of exceptions and so forth that could be added but the purpose of this principle is just to make it clear that (a) there's nothing inherently wrong in reporting suspecting socks and (b) inplicitly, the thing not to do is simply run around making allegations without following it up with a report.  Roger Davies talk 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting personal information[edit]

6) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by Oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing. (Verbatim from the "Outing" policy.)

Support:
  1. Again, a reminder,  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Roger, perhaps you meant "again"? But anyway, support. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. Tweaked ;)  Roger Davies talk 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think the statements, as worded, are too strong: once self-disclosed, something cannot be effectively undisclosed, and penalizing people for preventing the impossible-to-prevent seems silly. Still, I cannot disagree that this is how policy is currently worded. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 06:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is valid in the general case; there are some narrow exceptions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Jclemens. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

What harassment is not[edit]

7) The "Harassment" policy is intended to protect victims from genuine harassment; that is, to protect victims from deliberate actions intended to cause distress, such as unwarranted, repeated, and unwanted correspondence or postings. However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one. Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations harassment; the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioural oversight. Unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly. (Summarised from "What harassment is not".)

Support:
  1. From the current policy,  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support as a general matter, though this is a general summary of a policy that has proven to have many complexities in application. The specific problem referred to in this principle is one which has been referred to as "wikistalking" and more recently as "wikihounding"; and distinguishing wikihounding harassment from good-faith scrutiny of contributions is not always easy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added, with this edit, "unwarranted" to the "repeated and unwanted" statement above to allude to the bad faith aspects. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies talk 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This helps to a point, though it is arguably tautological ("unwarranted" behavior violates the policy while warranted behavior doesn't—one certainly hopes this is the case!). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which I put in the wrong place, so I've moved unwarranted back one. "Warranted repeated and unwanted correspondence" would include notices of copyvios, AFDs, etc. These might be repeated and might be unwelcome, but they are warranted ;)  Roger Davies talk 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sockpuppetry[edit]

8) In essence, the Sockpuppetry policy states: "The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account."

Support:
  1. Standard,  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 06:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. To be clear, this summarizes the general policy, without including the exceptions contained in the policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Technically indistinguishable users[edit]

9) Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives and are technically indistinguishable. When editing the same articles, participating in the same community discussions, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute, closely related accounts should disclose the connection and observe relevant policies as if they were a single account. (Extracted from "Sharing an IP address".)

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 06:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] 20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As edited I can now support this, at least as a general principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Per Brad. The particular clause that is being cited discusses users who are technically indistinguishable (i.e. appear to be the same user as far as IP information is concerned) rather than "closely connected" users in the general sense. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, checkuser says they are technically indistinguishable (same IP, same computer). I've added "and are technically indistinguishable" to the first sentence to make this clearer.  Roger Davies talk 05:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I have been supporting general principles in this proposed decision even though they have exceptions and complexities, but this one is problematic for me, in part because it is not clear what "closely connected users" or "closely connected accounts" is meant to mean. If we are talking about related people editing a controversial article from the same household, that is one thing, but there are a lot of other forms of "connections" that might or might not be considered "close." And saying that we will treat two people as if they are one person is not necessarily an approach that has always proved beneficial in the past. At times it is necessary, if only on the basis that it is more polite to say to a strongly suspected sockpuppeteer or meatpuppeteer that "we will treat you as if you were one user" rather than "it is evident to all that you are one user," but this will be relatively rare. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, and in some instances, it is obvious that two accounts that are technically indistinguishable are different people. In this particular case, which is what this principle is about, it is difficult to imagine more closely connected accounts, or more blurred boundaries, no matter which way it's analysed. Here, the Captain Occam account is interested in the Ferahgo account's main focus: the dinosaur forefathers of birds. The Ferahgo account is keenly interested in "race and intelligence", the Captain Occam account's main focus. Both accounts claim to be artists. Each account is tenacious and persistent in its support in disputes of the other, initially covertly, and then overtly. Both accounts have been active for years in trying to get Mathsci out of the equation. Additionally, the only independent evidence we have shows that they not only share an IP address but also a computer. In these circumstances, we have, I suggest, no alternative other than treating them as one.  Roger Davies talk 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took "closely connected" to mean "share a personal computer or an Internet connection" as per the policy page, and no more nor less than that. The principle is saying that if there is such sharing and they edit with the same objectives, then they may be considered a single account (in case of problems) so should observe relevant policies as if they were a single account (in order to prevent problems). The relevance for this case/review is that despite warnings and notices, the two accounts did not always observe relevant policies as if they were a single account. It is, of course, a separate decision as to how far they sinned, and if so what sort of sanction should be observed, but I think the principle of WP:Share is appropriate here. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors with a single voice[edit]

10) It is rarely possible to determine with complete certainty whether several editors from the same IP are sockpuppets, meat puppets, or acquaintances who happen to edit Wikipedia. In such cases, remedies may be fashioned which are based on the behaviour of the user rather than their identity. The Arbitration Committee may determine that editors who edit with the same agenda and make the same types of edits be treated as a single editor. (From the "Scientology" case.)

Support:
  1. This consolidates the WP:SHARE and WP:DUCK principles.  Roger Davies talk 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 06:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I could quibble some more with the wording (for example, to clarify that we are dealing with users who consistently share the same IP over an extended time period), but we have an understanding on the essence of what is being said here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Presumption of coordination[edit]

11) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Support:
  1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies talk 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm supporting this, though I wouldn't like it to be seen that as a matter of course we need to evaluate a user's prior contributions before listening to their views. What should matter is what a person says, not who says it, or their contribution history. If a point is valid, it is valid and should not be disregarded because the person saying it happens to have made few other contributions and has joined a series of related discussions in which several other new users are also commenting. However, if there are two opposing valid points and a decision has to made between them, conventionally we look toward the majority view, and in those situations it would be prudent for a closing admin to consider the reliability of those taking part in the discussion, and - if necessary - seek further input from the community via the usual noticeboards. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Meatpuppetry[edit]

12) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Support:
  1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies talk 19:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Personal attacks[edit]

13) The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of blocks or sanctions as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damage the work of building an encyclopedia. (Summarised from: "Why personal attacks are harmful".)

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 06:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It is as unacceptable to personally attack an editor with a problematic history as an editor with an unblemished one. However, it is more often necessary to invoke dispute resolution or pursue legitimate grievances (e.g. through ANI or AE reports) against an editor with a problematic history than against an editor with an unblemished one. (After all, that editor will presumably have obtained "a series of blocks or sanctions" as the result of earlier, legitimate concerns about his or her behavior, and while our hope is that the block or sanction will have educated the editor about the need to avoid recurrence of the problem, unfortunately this does not always occur, as we all know.) The principle is true as long as "personal attack" is not interpreted overbroadly as including legitimate criticism or calls for dispute resolution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Battleground conduct[edit]

14) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Prolonged and repetitive use of community processes to perpetuate ideological and/or content disputes is extremely disruptive and creates a toxic environment.

Support:
  1. Standard,  Roger Davies talk 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 06:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [talk] 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus in internal processes[edit]

15) Processes internal to the functioning of the Wikipedia project rely on consensus. Given the decisive nature of the discussions, and the likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation.

Support:
  1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies talk 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not completely sure about the use of 'also' in this context, however, overall support. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was originally immediately followed the other consensus principle. Removed it,  Roger Davies talk 19:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Canvassing[edit]

16) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

Support:
  1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies talk 19:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the specific caveat that Wikiprojects are by definition, non-partisan, such that notifying a relevant Wikiproject is never a partisan audience--even if the members of that Wikiproject may tend to have a particular take on a question. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I can't think of a Wikipedia forum that could strictly be called biased or partisan, so I am assuming this principle is talking about using off-Wiki forums rather than Wikiprojects, etc. We want to welcome expert opinion, and we also want to encourage a wide range of opinions including the views of non-Wikipedians, so I can see instances where reaching out to a group of experts for their opinion would be useful; however, the point is taken that it is the manner of the reaching out that is important, and if someone has mentioned a discussion elsewhere - either on or off-Wiki - then good practise is to mention this on the discussion page, preferably with the wording used. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus[edit]

1) This dispute is focused on the conduct of editors formerly editing within the Race and intelligence controversy category.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Specifically, on three named editors who've edited on that topic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 15:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Mathsci[edit]

Mathsci: context[edit]

2.1) In respect of Mathsci (talk · contribs), after considering the preliminary statements and comments, the Committee by motion invited evidence specific to the following:

  • Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
  • Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
  • Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?

in order to make a determination.

Support:
  1. The findings that follow broadly set out to address these specific points.  Roger Davies talk 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is just the pretext so yes this was the scope. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Mathsci: background[edit]

2.2) Mathsci avoided a conventional sanction for clear misconduct during the prior case by proposing a voluntary restriction. This restriction was subsequently lifted. Although Mathsci has not edited articles within the area of conflict, he has actively participated in enforcement of the topic's discretionary sanctions.[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It bears emphasis that much of Mathsci's enforcement activity in this area relates to socks of other banned users, one of whom is particularly virulent and disruptive, having nothing to do with either Captain Occam or Feragho the Assassin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Added diffs. Sorry, I hadn't realised this was in contention,  Roger Davies talk 08:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci: allegations of hounding[edit]

2.3) The examples of alleged hounding of Ferahgo by Mathsci do not rise to the level where ordinarily they would merit an arbitration finding. (See: Ferahgo's request statement, Ferahgo's supplementary request statement, New evidence by Ferahgo (April 27th).)

Support:
  1. Per the "What harassment is not" principle,  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated evidence to bring in 26 Apr material,  Roger Davies talk 09:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 05:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. It has been excessive though, and has got personal. Glancing at Wikiquette archives, I can see that Mathsci's conduct does occasionally come up for discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I think we may need another finding to explain as background why we are saying this. PhilKnight (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this may lack a bit on context. I probably need to touch on Ferahgo's and Captain Occam's broader enhanced topic ban too, if I'm going to do that as, at first sight anyway, Ferahgo's original amendment request is in breach of it. This is, of course, quite apart from any jurisdictional issues about whether topic bans that have not been issued by ArbCom can restrict access to ArbCom.  Roger Davies talk 08:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci: Sockpuppet investigations[edit]

2.4) No evidence has been presented that Mathsci is abusing sockpuppet investigation processes.

Support:
  1. Hipocrite asserts that Mathsci was "responsible for 88% of the accurate reports".  Roger Davies talk 14:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given the longevity of any editor in a contentious topic area, especially one of the many plagued by repeated socking, it is only natural that an editor who continues to edit in the area would be more likely to see and report sockpuppets. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my comment on 2.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 05:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Mathsci: personal attacks / battleground conduct[edit]

2.5) Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct in respect of editors he perceives as ideological opponents (See: Ferahgo's request statement, Ferahgo's supplementary request statement, New evidence by Ferahgo (April 27th).)

Support:
  1. This has continued during this review and is unfortunately reminiscent of the misconduct examined the prior misconduct,  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. From my perspective, the problem is more of a battleground mentality, than of incivility. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mathsci is often right. That he tends to be right and that processes work to sanction those who are in more clear breach of our editing expectations should not be taken as carte blanche to continue or escalate the battleground conduct. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unnecessary and unnecessarily unpleasant personal comments which creates a toxic atmosphere. Our aim in Wikipedia in both articles and conduct is to be neutral, fair, balanced and undramatic. Raise concerns in appropriate forums only. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I thought I had supported this, but, as discovered on WT:ACN, I did not. Doing so now, post closure, for the record. Courcelles 05:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Mathsci has tried to follow due process. Yes, the gloves have come off in a long term acerbic dispute, but most of the posts concern conduct. Unfortunately the personal material is now relevant due to the meatpuppetry issue identified. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clearly Mathsci could stand to moderate his language on occasion, but given his leading role in dealing with disruption in this topic area (much of which is unrelated to the other parties to this case), and that he has had relatively little assistance in doing so, I'm not convinced that this finding is warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I had expected to support this finding, but I don't think - given the opposition - that Mathsci's behaviour is completely out of order. If he continues to behave like this with editors who have clean hands, that will be a problem. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam[edit]

Ferahgo and Occam: context[edit]

3.1) In respect of Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs), after considering the preliminary statements and comments, the Committee by motion invited evidence specific to the following:

  • Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
  • Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

in order to make its determination.

Support:
  1. Per the Mathsci findings, the FoFs which follow seek to address these specific points,  Roger Davies talk 22:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is just the pretext so yes this was the scope. "functionally indistinguishable" is not the phrase I'd use, need to think on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, this was the wording in the motion and on the evidence page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. These are merely the questions we are here to answer. Courcelles 05:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Can someone clarify for me the terminology of "be site-banned coterminously" - does this mean "be site-banned under the same terms". SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that site bans would end at the same time, The topic bans are already coterminous.  Roger Davies talk 01:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"be site-banned under the same terms, viz - same length of time and same rights of appeal". So, for example, as Captain Occam appealed his block in December, either Captain Occam or Ferahgo would be able to appeal again in June. Is that it? SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose so, but I don't think we're bound by the language as it is, of course, for us to decide in the Remedies exactly what is appropriate.  Roger Davies talk 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo and Occam: account creation[edit]

3.2) The accounts of Captain Occam (talk · contribs) and Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) were created approximately 45 minutes apart on 11 November 2006. Captain Occam started editing about two weeks later on 26 November 2006; Ferahgo the Assassin waited more than eighteen months before first editing on 26 June 2008.

Support:
  1. There is a close association from the start; and the long delay before editing is sometimes suggestive of a sleeper account.  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Other than two small edits on 26 November 2006, Captain Occam also waited until 2008 before editing. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. (Copyedited by adding "The accounts of"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Basic facts Courcelles 05:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Though I agree that a delay can be suggestive of a sleeper account, such an account would likely be created by someone with prior experience and/or knowledge of the Wikipedia community; in the absence of evidence of such prior experience/knowledge I would not be inclined to assume a sleeper account based only on a delay. Also worth noting is that other than the two small edits on 26 November 2006, Captain Occam also waited until 2008 before editing. If the Ferahgo the Assassin account is a sleeper, then so is the Captain Occam account, and the puppet master of the two accounts has yet to be identified. Given the scrutiny those involved in the R&I case have been subjected to, I would have thought that if there were a linked account/puppet master that would have been identified by now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the many mysteries in this case is that although the accounts were registered more or less simultaneously, according to Ferahgo the registrations were made independently without discussion with each other.[11]  Roger Davies talk 04:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a real problem with that. My recollection is that I registered on Wikipedia in order to start editing beer articles, and I have been puzzled for years by this edit which I don't recall making. I think it is difficult to make assumptions about motives - good or bad - from such evidence, and while there are certain scenarios we can explore and discuss, I'm still keeping an open mind and will now focus on the edits that the Ferahgo account has made since the ArbCom case. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The finding of fact makes no assumptions about motives.  Roger Davies talk 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo and Occam: Shared causes[edit]

3.3) Mathsci's analysis of Ferahgo's 20 first edits suggests that from the outset, Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin joined cause, often sharing similar phrasing and employing similar arguments.

Support:
  1. The initial supports at WP:AN were made without disclosing any relationship.  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While an anonymous account is not obliged to reveal relationships or personal details, this comment: "I saw this issue being brought up on the NPOV noticeboard and thought I'd offer a comment here" appears to be deliberately misleading. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 05:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Where is Mathsci's analysis of Ferahgo's 20 first edits? The link above goes to the current Evidence page where I can't find the analysis - nor can I find it on the R&I Evidence page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the link. It's on the main review page, not the /Evidence page. Sorry,  Roger Davies talk 01:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SilkTork ✔Tea time 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Occam: topic-ban and aftermath[edit]

3.4) Captain Occam was topic-banned for disruptive conduct. Ferahgo was not a party to the Race and Intelligence case. Prior to September 2010, Ferahgo had hardly edited within the Race and Intelligence topic and became active only after Captain Occam had been topic-banned.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Worth pointing out that Ferahgo edited (mainly) paleontology related articles and the talkpages only of Race and Intelligence topics. And that in Ferahgo's words: "my primary sphere of interest is paleontology and evolution, but as you've seen it is possible for that sphere to overlap unpredictably with R&I.". SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reflecting on Ferahgo's comment above, I think she meant that in the case of Henry Fairfield Osborn she was editing that article because he was a paleontologist, and she got blocked because he had also worked in the field of R&I. I don't think she was commenting on the unpredictably of her edits on the talkpages of R&I articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 05:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked[edit]

3.5) On 30 August 2010, Ferahgo was advised by the closing administrator at a sockpuppet investigation that she was "essentially topic-banned from 'race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed' along with Captain Occam".[12] This did not stop Ferahgo from editing within the topic anyway and, on 7 October 2010, Ferahgo was formally topic-banned from race and intelligence per WP:SHARE. On 26 November 2010, Ferahgo was briefly blocked at Arbitration enforcement for infringing the topic ban.[13]

Support:
  1. The comment in the second diff provides useful context for this.  Roger Davies talk 04:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ferahgo has been notified that it would be inappropriate for that account to be used for editing in the R&I area, and yet the editing continued. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Made minor copyedits; any arbitrator who disagrees may revert (my support will stand). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 05:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • For our purposes, under WP:Share, the two accounts are so related that effectively a notice to one is a notice to the other, and so technically the account holder(s) had also been previously notified when Captain Occam had been topic banned. When carefully examined, the account holder(s) had been infringing the topic ban for some time. However, what should also be taken into account is the behaviour of the account holder(s) since Ferahgo was formally topic-banned; unfortunately we have one clear instance of an infringement since that notice. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feragho and Occam are topic banned[edit]

3.6) Following a report to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the Race and Intelligence topic.[14]

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.

Support:
  1. Background. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 12:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 05:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Occam is site-banned[edit]

3.7) For most of 2011 up to 23 June 2011, Captain Occam worked on bringing William Beebe to GA status; from 23 June 2011 up to 13 Sept 2011, he concentrated his Wikipedia activities to user talkpages and Arbitration discussions on matters or persons related to the R&I case. On 13 Sept 2011 Captain Occam was contacted by Aprock regarding reviewing an abortion related article, which he declined to do as he stated that he and Ferahgo the Assassin had already spent six hours studying the abortion talkpage.[15] His next edit was 20 November 2011 in which he raised a query regarding OrangeMarlin on the Abortion ArbCom case.[16] Other than some discussion regarding the Hugo Chávez article, his edits from that point until 12 December 2011 mainly related to OrangeMarlin. He was site-banned on 13 December 2011 for 12 months for "battlefield behaviour directed at Orangemarlin": User_talk:Captain_Occam#Blocked_under_Arbitration_Enforcement. A ban appeal was declined by the Arbitration Committee in December 2011. There have been no further appeals to the ban.

Support:
  1. More background. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Probably worth mentioning the block was 12 months. PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 12:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 05:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ferahgo and Occam: site-ban and aftermath[edit]

3.8) In the weeks before Captain Occam was site-banned on 13 December 2011, Ferahgo had been virtually inactive, making fewer than twenty edits since the beginning of October 2011. Ferahgo became active again on 18 December 2011, then started editing regularly, and filed the request for amendment that helped initiate this present case on 8 January 2012. The request was for an interaction ban between Ferahgo and Mathsci, with Captain Occam also included in the interaction provisions.

Support:
  1. Captain Occam's longstanding feud with Mathsci,  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Minor, non-substantive copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 05:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Ferahgo had been active from May 2010 through to July 2011, then stopped during August 2011 returned in September 2011, then made only a few edits in October and November, increasing slightly in December, mainly in palaeontology articles. I'm not sure that the bulk of the finding as worded is helpful. The suggestion is that Captain Occam either directly or through influence is editing on Wikipedia through Ferahgo, and while that is possible (and highly likely from the evidence of previous R&I edits which are often on separate days to the palaeontology edits), I don't think the evidence in this finding is strong enough to indicate that. I would say that an edit like this on Dec 27 2011, is by someone genuinely interested in palaeontology, rather than someone mocking an account along waiting to file a complaint against Mathsci. There is a possibility, of course, that Captain Occam was the influence behind the filing of the amendment; but if we want to point to that possibility I think we need to be a little more precise than this finding. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Captain Occam account also appears genuinely interested in palaeontology, with a user box on the talk page and a statement (removed on 11 Jan 2011) that they like to "debate about evolution, particularly when it involves my two favorite topics: evolutionary psychology and the origin of birds". The Captain Occam account also apparently assisted the Ferahgo account in finding references for an origin of birds sourcelist.[17],[18],[19],[20]. Much more to the point, the Captain Occam account added a comment[[21] about Deinonychosauria, which is the group to which Deinonychus (the subject of the diff you've provided above) belong. All in all, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the Captain Occam account has been the bad hand and the Ferahgo account the good hand.  Roger Davies talk 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you have gathered enough evidence to show there is such a close link between the accounts that per WP:Share they should be treated as one (and, indeed, any examination of the contribution history of both will back that up - and then on top of that we have the additional technical evidence). I'm just wondering about the effectiveness of this particular finding as presented. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo and Occam: proxying[edit]

3.9) Ferahgo and Captain Occam have participated in many requests for Arbitration Enforcement, seemingly pursuing each other's or joint interests. (Requests: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. See: Supplementary evidence by Mathsci (26 Apr 2012).)

Support:
  1. There are a few number of filings at WP:AN and WP:ANI too, some mentioned in FOF #3.2 above.  Roger Davies talk
    Remove - with apologies - incorrect links per Ferahgo's request,  Roger Davies talk 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Generally correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Of the eight links, I found four (3,4,7 & 8) did not support the finding. I would quibble with the "participated in many requests", though agree that they have spoken with one voice regarding matters related to or arising out of the R&I case. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 05:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I am perhaps not understanding this finding. The third diff leads to an Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ferahgo against her block, and there appears to be no involvement by Captain Occam. The fourth diff leads to a filing by Mathsci against Captain Occam for breaking his topic ban, and Ferahgo doesn't appear to get involved. Am I supposed to be seeing them supporting each other in these filings, or am I supposed to be looking for something else? SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to list all the relevant DR discussions but I haven't time to put it coherently together so I included samples. However, Mathsci's additional evidence of 26 Apr covers much of the same ground, but with linking narrative, so it's easier to follow. I've linked to that instead. Apologies, I should have done this much sooner.  Roger Davies talk 10:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo and Occam: uncertainty over authorship[edit]

3.10) Because of technical and broad behavioural similarities, it is impossible to determine (i) whose hands are on the keyboard at any particular moment and (ii) the extent to which there is collusion. It is more likely than not that the sock puppetry policy has been breached.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see where you're coming from - the wording of (ii) is tricky - maybe instead of "It is more likely than not that..", one could write "There is a strong suspicion that..." Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 05:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • I think it's possible this should be split into 2 findings. I agree with the first sentence enough to support, however I'm less comfortable with the second sentence. PhilKnight (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Phil. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, I don't have a large problem with the second sentence logically following from the first one, especially in context of all the other findings here. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is "impossible" to determine that sock puppetry has taken place, then how can it be "more likely" that it has taken place. There are a range of scenarios that we could look at regarding these two accounts, but they are assumptions because we can't tell what is going on. I think what is important for us is that where it is difficult for us to determine if mutual use of accounts has taken place, and disruption to Wikipedia is taking place, then under WP:Share we can treat the two accounts the same and sanction both. I am fairly sure I am supporting the principle that I think is behind the words - I'm just not comfortable with the current wording. Perhaps if the second sentence read: "In the circumstances, where disruption is occurring, WP:Share applies, and both accounts may be sanctioned. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't say that it is impossible to determine whether sock puppetry has taken place, the thrust is that it is impossible to distinguish between sock puppetry and collusion. (In fact, since drafting this, it probably is possible to draw inferences from, among other things, edit summaries.)

    With respect to the second sentence, WP:SHARE doesn't only apply when disruption takes, it applies when "participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute" and says that in those situations "closely related accounts should disclose the connection ... If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." I cannot therefore support your proposed wording which appears to significantly re-interpret policy.

    In any event, as they certainly did not initially disclose the close connection (the most blatant example being, of course, in the first 20 edits referred to Mathsci's evidence) and have not made a point of doing so, not even with user page notices, they have beyond doubt breached WP:SHARE (which is part of WP:SOCK).  Roger Davies talk 01:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about "In the circumstances WP:Share applies, and both accounts may be sanctioned for the disruptive behaviour of either one." Or is that not how you would interpret WP:Share? SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2[edit]

Off-wiki discussions[edit]

4.1) In October 2010, Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin initiated discussions with friends about the "Race and Intelligence" topic in a private forum. Among other things, in this discussion, they characterised their "Race and Intelligence" topic bans as censorship of the point-of-view they had been advocating. Within days, in all probability two of the forum participants – SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 – were actively editing within the "Race and intelligence" topic.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Note that this evidence was provided via email by Ferahgo, hence the lack of diffs. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Perhaps worth noting that the forum thread did not explicitly set out to canvass support - it was a comment on Ferahgo's feelings about her experiences with the Race and Intelligence topic on Wikipedia. It can perhaps be taken as a "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest" comment in which the consequences of an expression of frustration are rather larger than one intended. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SightWatcher (background)[edit]

4.2) SightWatcher (talk · contribs) was created shortly after the private discussion and - a few days and less than twenty edits later - on 17 October 2010, was editing within the Race and Intelligence topic.[30]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This is true, though it is not in itself problematic that someone would start editing Wikipedia because of a forum thread on a particular topic. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

TrevelyanL85A2 (background)[edit]

4.3) TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) was created in June 2006 and, between then and October 2010, had made only about 70 edits, mostly on military history topics. Prior to the private discussions, the user had never edited within the Race and intelligence topic. This editor started participating in the area of conflict on 18 October 2010.[31]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. By itself also not too problematic, but given the stated intention on the forum to support Ferahgo, and then the series of edits to other articles from 12 October before moving to Race & Intelligence in a similar manner to SightWatcher, there is an appearance of deception which it is difficult to excuse. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Editing with common purpose[edit]

4.4) SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 edited in covert support of each other on the Race and intelligence article and its talk page.[32], [33], [34], [35], [36] They behaved similarly on the {{Human intelligence}} template and its talk page. [37], [38], [39]. They also posted alongside the Ferahgo and Occam accounts in a Request for Comment.[40], [41], [42], [43]. SightWatcher also supported Ferahgo at an Arbitration Enforcement request concerning the same editor, WeijiBaikeBianji.[44], [45]

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mathsci: remedies[edit]

Mathsci: admonished[edit]

1.1) Mathsci is admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct.

Support:
  1. As the voluntary restriction didn't seem to do the trick/has worn off, we need a formal remedy, I think. There's an alternative immediately below.  Roger Davies talk 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Contra Cas, there is a wrong way to do a right thing, and I think Mathsci has been at the line or over it on enough occasions that a formal admonishment is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Only if Remedy 5 doesn't pass, because if the interaction ban passes, an admonishment isn't necessary, in the same way if we ban CO, we don't, in addition, vote to admonish him. PhilKnight (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A little more strident than I think necessary (I'd delete the word "strongly", but, basically on point) Courcelles 06:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've deleted "strongly" from the header and remedy. See also my "Update" comment below,  Roger Davies talk 05:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. There is evidence presented that the concerns he's raised have a very real basis, as highlighted above, and most of his posts concern this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments on the findings. (Plus I have always disliked the phrase "battlefield conduct," though I wouldn't oppose for this reason alone.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As with the finding --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Holding off for now. If we settle on some lesser sanction for FtA, which allows editing of palaeontology articles, an interaction ban would be required. On the basis that one-way interaction bans don't work, the interaction ban would be two-way. In which case, I think an admonishment probably wouldn't be necessary, in the same way if we ban CO, we don't, in addition, vote to admonish him. Otherwise, however, I'll either support this wording, or a less strongly worded alternative. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's the rub. While I think we need to get the point across firmly to Mathsci about avoiding battlefield conduct, I don't think it's in the best interests of the project for him to be prohibited from reporting DeviantArt recruitees at SPI and so on. If, in the reports, there's a connection to Ferahgo or Occam, Mathsci needs to be free, provided he stays within the rules, to mention it. I say this because the alleged steady recruitment of apparent DeviantArt friends to edit the R&I topic is probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen. Let's not forget that Occam and Ferahgo are DeviantArt alumni.  Roger Davies talk 21:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I've never been a great believer in the other-side-is-worst defence to sanctions and while good points are made in the oppose votes, there is an issue with Mathsci's occasional grim relentlessness, which needs calling out. While reverting posts by a banned user is an option, Mathsci shouldn't be doing so from user talk pages in the face of the user's opposition to him doing so.[46] Accordingly, I don't think the latest revert yesterday was either wise or appropriate, especially as the post was neither extreme nor offensive nor a personal attack on Mathsci. This is provocative battleground behaviour.  Roger Davies talk 05:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci site-banned for three months[edit]

1.2) Mathsci is site-banned for three months.

Support:
  1. Alternative to remedy #1,  Roger Davies talk 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Unconvinced this is the best approach. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Roger, for mine, this doesn't follow logically from the sequence of findings outlined above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm still completing my review of the evidence, but I know enough already to say that this is not in prospect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC) With my study of the evidence completed, reaffirming my opposition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While this may be a remedy if battlefield conduct continues, I think it excessive and premature at this point. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not at this point...yet --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not necessary at this point Courcelles 05:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned[edit]

2.1) Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam are site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Prefer Remedies 3 & 4. PhilKnight (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These two appear to be a problem wherever they go. The amount of text, time, effort etc expended by them in arguing about anything and everything does not suggest a good fit with this project. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With regret, per Elen. Courcelles 04:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think that they both can be an assert to Wikipedia, but through their keenness with getting their point of view into Race and Intelligence and in attempting to get others to support them and in trying to silence criticism they have ultimately be problematic enough to warrant a site ban. We need contributors who accept that Wikipedia is a work in progress and that while it is important to work toward improving articles, that work should be done in an open and collegiate fashion. It is distracting and against the principles of Wikipedia to engage in battleground tactics, and especially to form (even if unintentionally) secret armies for that purpose. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. In the interests of practicality, a strict topic ban on any R&I-related editing or discussion broadly construed leaves Ferahgo open to contributing constructively elsewhere in subjects such as paleontology. She can't then be a proxy for Captain Occam as she'll be under the same restrictions and open to sanctions anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ferahgo and Captain Occam are already under such an enhanced topic ban and have been for well over a year.[47] The same topic ban also prohibited them from initiating requests at WP:AE, so it seems we are getting the same stuff coming to us as Requests for Amendment instead.  Roger Davies talk 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I saw mention of discussion in original - the asking of others to correct edits shows this to be problematic and hence needing specifying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the reduction in disruption over time as the account holder(s) modify their behaviour, I would be more in favour of just a topic and interaction ban. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Stepping back to re-examine evidence. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • In light of the discussion on the talk page, and Cas's comment, this should perhaps be split into a remedy for FtA and a separate remdy for CO. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Phil. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that indefinite topic-bans of both editors on the race and intelligence topic-area, broadly construed and including process and policy pages, would not be sufficient. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this before I vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that it has been conclusively established that there are two separate persons, each of which is responsible for all the edits of one of the Captain Occam or Ferahgo the Assassin accounts. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to add to the uncertainty, I'm not sure that this is about the R&I topic any more. It seems to me that there are much deeper general behavioural issues with Occam/Ferahgo, in particular a tendency to not hear combined with extraordinary persistence and tenacity (trying to get an iBan with Mathsci for nearly two years, for example) which are a poor fit for Wikipedia.  Roger Davies talk 21:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problematic area appears to be R&I. Though there is also the interaction with Mathsci. Outside of that, I'm not sure we have a significant problem. Our difficulty, of course, is that be this one person playing good hand / bad hand. or two people, one of whom is abusing the other's account, we have an uncertainty that any restraint is going to work given that previous restraints have failed. My inclination at the moment is to consider just the topic and interaction ban for both accounts and see how that goes. My thinking on this is based on the way that violations have reduced over the years as the account holder(s) have learned the error of their ways, and/or that we are serious about sanctions. My thinking is that we are highly unlikely to see any more violations, and if we do, the account holder(s) would be aware that they had used up their last chance. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "As the account holder(s) have learned the error of their ways"? I'm not seeing this myself. The evidence suggests that their frequent filings at WP:AE were only reined in by banning them from initiating cases with the enhanced topic ban. Moreover, the Occam account was blocked during this request for an interaction ban at ANI, seemingly triggered by this remark that Occam made about OrangeMarlin. Occam's first edit after nearly two months' absence was to plunge straight into a dispute.  Roger Davies talk 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sheer amount of CANVASSING that Feragho has done in respect of this case is astonishing. These two appear to be combative wherever they go. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam site-banned[edit]

3) Captain Occam is site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year. After one year has elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IFF remedy 2.1 banning both of them does not pass. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Roger in the comments, this makes little sense. Courcelles 04:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Either both or neither. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Abstain:
Comments:
  • This remedy splits the accounts for WP:SHARE purposes and thus flies in the face of the evidence. Are we saying here we'll ban the bad hand, but keep the better one?  Roger Davies talk 13:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Roger. We either ban them both, or we unban Captain Occam. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo the Assassin banned for 1 year[edit]

4) Ferahgo the Assassin is site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Support:
  1. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IFF remedy 2.1 banning both of them does not pass. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Remedy 2 is the way to handle this. Courcelles 04:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Either both or neither. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • On balance, if we're going to ban, FtA and CO really ought to be kept in strict link step: bans running together; appeals together etc. It reduces the potential for drama; for wiki-lawyering and/or asking the other parent; and reduces the administrative time burden on ArbCom. We always have the option of unlinking the accounts at a later point.  Roger Davies talk 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Roger. They need to be treated the same. I think we need to look at the totality of the edits as one unit and make an assessment from that. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci interaction ban[edit]

5) 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 Wikipedia, 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:
  1. Following discussion on the talk page, I think it's probably worth offering this as an alternative. Note that Ferahgo the Assassin is indefinitely topic banned from the Race and Intelligence set of articles. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Yes, an interaction ban is worth offering as an alternative but, in my view, it should be unilateral on Ferahgo and wider in its scope. This version, for instance, prevents Mathsci from raising possible off-wiki collusion or possible off-wiki harassment.  Roger Davies talk 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pretty much per Roger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I would also support a one-way interaction ban, with caveat that if MathSci abused the one-wayness of it, I would support making it two-way. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Roger --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I should hope that when Ferahgo and Captain Occam return they will not be causing any problems, and that Mathsci will have taken on board an ArbCom admonishment, so that an interaction ban would not be necessary. It should be possible for anyone to report concerns on anyone else in a firm but quiet manner in the appropriate places. I would not like to gag the messenger, but if he's shouting at the breakfast table rather than slipping his dispatch into the in-tray then measures will need to be taken. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • While a two-way interaction ban is my first choice, as I think it's more likely to succeed, if a one-way interaction ban is proposed, I'll still support it. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SightWatcher: remedies[edit]

SightWatcher topic-banned[edit]

6.1) SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

SightWatcher site-banned[edit]

6.2) SightWatcher is site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than six months. After six months have elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer just a topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As Phil --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Topic ban is enough for now Courcelles 05:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not yet necessary. We can revisit this as and if needed. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Undecided on this one. Recent edits don't appear to touch the topic area, and appear innocuous. Could it be that, recruited as a POV-warrior, this editor has strayed from the path to become yet another Wikipedian? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are probably too few edits (20-ish) to be able to tell ... I suppose my thinking here is that a site ban enables us to monitor their return to editing (if there is one) more effectively.  Roger Davies talk 11:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over 2/3rds of last 500 edits have been outside the R&I topic area and related issues. There's been work on films and on chickens. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrevelyanL85A2: remedies[edit]

TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned[edit]

7.1) TrevelyanL85A2 is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 05:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

TrevelyanL85A2 site-banned[edit]

7.2) TrevelyanL85A2 is site-banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than six months. After six months have elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:
  1.  Roger Davies talk 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer just a topic ban. PhilKnight (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not there yet I think. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Courcelles 06:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Log of topic bans and blocks. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently arbitration enforcement), or to the Arbitration Committee.

Support:
  1. Though, really, the idea that we need to vote enforcement authority for topic bans is a little silly, it does seem necessary here. Courcelles 06:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Added some guidance about where blocks should be logged. PhilKnight (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 05:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by --Guerillero | My Talk 01:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Jurisdiction 9 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Advice by individual arbitrators 9 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Consensus 6 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Participation 6 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Sockpuppet investigations 8 1 0 PASSING ·
6 Posting personal information 9 0 0 PASSING ·
7 What harassment is not 9 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Sockpuppetry 9 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Technically indistinguishable users 9 0 0 PASSING ·
10 Multiple editors with a single voice 9 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Presumption of coordination 7 0 0 PASSING ·
12 Meatpuppetry 7 0 0 PASSING ·
13 Personal attacks 9 0 0 PASSING ·
14 Battleground conduct 9 0 0 PASSING ·
15 Consensus in internal processes 7 0 0 PASSING ·
16 Canvassing 7 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2.1 Mathsci: context 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2.2 Mathsci: background 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2.3 Mathsci: allegations of hounding 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2.4 Mathsci: Sockpuppet investigations 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2.5 Mathsci: personal attacks / battleground conduct 5 3 0 PASSING ·
3.1 Ferahgo and Occam: context 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3.2 Ferahgo and Occam: account creation 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3.3 Ferahgo and Occam: Shared causes 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3.4 Occam: topic-ban and aftermath 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3.5 Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3.6 Feragho and Occam are topic banned 7 0 0 PASSING ·
3.7 Occam is site-banned 7 0 0 PASSING ·
3.8 Ferahgo and Occam: site-ban and aftermath 7 0 0 PASSING ·
3.9 Ferahgo and Occam: proxying 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3.10 Ferahgo and Occam: uncertainty over authorship 7 0 0 PASSING ·
4.1 Off-wiki discussions 7 0 0 PASSING ·
4.2 SightWatcher (background) 7 0 0 PASSING ·
4.3 TrevelyanL85A2 (background) 7 0 0 PASSING ·
4.4 Editing with common purpose 7 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1.1 Mathsci: admonished 5 3 0 PASSING ·
1.2 Mathsci site-banned for three months 1 7 0 PASSING ·
2 Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned 6 1 0 PASSING ·
3 Captain Occam site-banned 3 2 0 PASSING ·
4 Ferahgo the Assassin banned for 1 year 2 2 0 PASSING ·
5 Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci interaction ban 1 5 0 PASSING ·
6.1 SightWatcher topic-banned 7 1 0 PASSING ·
6.2 SightWatcher site-banned 2 5 0 PASSING ·
7.1 TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned 7 0 0 PASSING ·
7.1 TrevelyanL85A2 site-banned 3 4 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Enforcement by block 6 0 0 PASSING ·
Notes


Vote[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

Support
  1. I'm done. Everything I see is either passing or unlikely to do so, doesn't seem to be anything really waiting on more votes. Courcelles 04:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well, someone else needs to vote for the enforcement, but other than that, I agree. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 05:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Enforcement is now passing, so I guess we can close. PhilKnight (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence/Review/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079525640"