Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 67

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 65 Archive 66 Archive 67 Archive 68 Archive 69 Archive 70
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126


Amendment request: Race and intelligence (December 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by SightWatcher (talk) at 01:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Case affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. 6.1: SightWatcher topic-banned
  2. 7.1: TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned
  3. Cla68's one-way interaction ban
  4. The Devil's Advocate's one-way interaction ban
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

I request that all four sanctions are vacated.

Statement by SightWatcher

I don't intend to edit R&I articles anymore if my topic ban is lifted. I'm requesting that it be lifted because I want to go back to being totally uninvolved in R&I, the way I had been for a year before I was sanctioned. When I was sanctioned in May 2012, my last edit that had anything to do with R&I was in May 2011. But my topic ban has often made me a focus of R&I related discussions even when I avoid them, which makes me too uncomfortable at Wikipedia to keep editing articles about books and movies the way I used to.

In the recent request by Cla68, AGK made a very insightful comment [4] about the current R&I remedies: "I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration)." AGK's point can be seen from the history of requests there have been about the same issues after the review: May 17 June 10 July 8 July 25 October 22 November 10 I understand there was drama in the R&I topic before the review, but there wasn't so much of it that a new arbitration request was happening almost every month.

The goal of sanctions at Wikipedia is to prevent conflict, but the decision Roger Davies wrote in the review is having the opposite effect. I had already quit the R&I topic a year before I was sanctioned, so the only effect of my sanction was attracting more attention to me. The Devil's Advocate explained here how another of the bans I'm appealing also has created more drama, and he and Cla68 can speak for themselves about their own sanctions.

I still don't completely understand the basis for my topic ban, or why it needed to include an interaction ban with every other person who's edited R&I articles. My finding of fact says I was sanctioned because my involvement there was inspired by an off-wiki discussion, and both SilkTork [5] and Roger Davies [6] said the findings do not allege I was deliberately recruited. This needs to be pointed out because my finding of fact has often been misremembered as saying I was deliberately recruited, even though Arbcom was clear during the review they did not support this claim. SilkTork also mentioned here that it's not problematic for a person to become involved here because of an off-wiki discussion. Since my finding of fact does not allege I did anything against policy, I don't understand why I needed to be topic banned when I was no longer involved in the topic.

The reason Arbcom rejected Cla68's request seems to be that they thought a full case was needed, as mentioned by SilkTork [7] and Elen of the Roads. [8] I would like it best if Arbcom could just lift the sanctions, but if they would rather open a full case, that would be okay with me also.

Response to David Fuchs: the reason I can't just ignore discussions about me is because I can still get sanctioned in discussions where I don't participate about articles I don't edit. That happened to me in the review. If Arbcom takes Elen of the Roads' suggestion to sanction the four parties I named here, the sanction against The Devil's Advocate will be another example, because TDA hasn't commented in this request. After situations like these, it would be very naive of me to think I can avoid being sanctioned under R&I just by staying away from the articles and discussions about them. As for how these sanctions can affect someone who doesn't edit the articles, look at the explanation TDA gave here.
There is one thing that's already been a danger if I don't participate in the discussions where I get brought up. Mathsci has misstated the reason I was sanctioned so many times that other editors (including some members of Arbcom) have sometimes forgotten what the real reason was. There's another new example of this in his comment below about "proxy-editing", which has no basis in any finding of fact, and was contradicted during the review by Roger Davies and SilkTork and also afterwards by Jclemens. [9] I expressed concern to SilkTork here that if I don't do anything to stop this, Mathsci's version of events could become a sort of unofficial amendment that Arbcom never endorsed. At the same time I also have to be very careful what I do, because as Mathsci points out I've sometimes been threatened with blocks for participating in these discussions. It's very difficult to know how to avoid both these dangers at once, but if my sanction could be lifted I wouldn't be in this situation anymore.
I don't care whether Arbcom lifts the sanction, or finds another solution. I just want this situation to change somehow. SilkTork's suggestion to include Mathsci in the interaction bans also could be a solution, but I didn't request that because I knew I couldn't request it without being reported at AE. -SightWatcher (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

I have never edited R & I, and I find my unilateral interaction ban incomprehensible. I would also find childish reactions to criticism, such as this one (I think I will label this the "I'm going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I don't get my way" defense) from someone who may be of adult age equally incomprehensible if I hadn't had so many years of experience dealing with Wikipedia's disfunctional and immature administration. Do whatever you feel is best ArbCom. If you want to continue to facilitate the ongoing, personal, years-long feud between an obsessive, established Wikipedia editor and an obsessive, established banned editor, while allowing thin-skinned admins to squish us peon content editors who try to say something about it, be my guest. Cla68 (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. ArbCom, could you please put a stop to this nonsense? How many more times do you need to be hit in the face by it? Cla68 (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Roger Davies, of course SightWatcher is spending a lot of time trying to get the sanction lifted, because he likely feels that it is really unfair. I believe the rest of us unnecessarily santioned because we got in the way of the Mathsci steamroller feel the same way. Have you ever been unfairly sanctioned because you spoke up about something wrong that was going on, then got pounded by a misguided admin like Future Perfect at Sunrise or Timotheus Cannens have done here? It really sucks to feel that level of frustration. Good grief, Roger, stop contributing to the problem and do something about it. Please think like Newyorkbrad and get some empathy for everybody who is involved here. All the rest of you arbs, I will be filing an Arbcom request soon about Future Perfect's role in facilitating the obsessive BATTLE between these two editors at that core of this problem. It won't stop until you take the keys from the steamroller and put it in the garage. I'm not the one driving it. I'm the one standing in front of it trying to get it to stop, and I keep getting run over. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork, if you all impose a sanction on Mathsci, please make sure it expressly covers his public interaction with suspected socks/IPs of this Captain Occam bloke. If Mathsci can only use private communication to alert you or other admins about problems with alleged harrassment from that banned user, then that should stop other editors from getting munched by Future Perfect or Timotheus Cannen when we raise warning flags about the BATTLE taking place in Wikipedia's public spaces. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare, from just a quick glance here, are you sure you should be clerking this? You know, if the ArbCom decides to open a case based on my request about Future Perfect, you could be a party to it. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Leaped before I looked. Cla68 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, it finally dawned on me what Roger Davies meant by "others are being trolled here." I wasn't trying to provoke a reaction from Mathsci with my comment above. I was restating the problem as I see it, which is that there is an ongoing, three-year battle in Wikipedia between two editors, one of whom is banned, that has been facilitated by poor decision-making by several admins, and which has resulted in arbitrary and unnecessary sanctions for editors who have tried to say something about it. I believe the evidence supports this problem statement, especially supported by the events of the last couple of days. Cla68 (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrators, could you please consider banning Future Perfect at Sunrise from the topic area and from using administrative actions, including participation in AE, in any way related to Mathsci? If you do so here, it will save me or someone else from having to file an ArbCom case request in the immediate future. If you need more evidence of his lack of objectivity besides his telling you all "F-you" over this a few weeks ago, then I'm fine with filing a case request. You may remember that Future Perfect at Sunrise has previously been desysopped. Based on his strong personal feelings on this topic area and towards Mathsci, it would likely save you all future work and drama if you removed him from the situation now. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, if you were to ban Mathsci from public comments on-wiki related to Captain Occam or any suspected socks/IPs of his, that also save the wiki a lot of drama in the future. Mathsci should still be able to notify administrators (except Future Perfect at Sunrise) by email if Occam wiki-hounds him in the future. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Mathsci, if you object to the lack of diffs, you should be joining me in advocating for the opening of a full case so this whole matter can be resolved. Here's a few just to get us started...there is some precedent to you objecting about something and then Future Perfect intervening and using his admin powers to take action on it. Here, you object to Loosmark's arbcom participation in Wikipedia, then Future Perfect steps in. Collect objected to your behavior related to Captain Occam this issue (I'm having a hard time keeping all the plyers straight), and Future Perfect warns him off. After you file a tendentious AE request on me, Future Perfect blocks me for electing to defend myself, then takes Mathsci's side in the AE discussion in which sanctions on Mathsci had been proposed, then quickly closes it despite objections from at least one participant. Future Perfect's desysopping happened after multiple violations of WP's policies. He has a history of using admin actions after apparently choosing a side in a Wikipedia battle, whether it be Eastern Europe, or the ongoing feud between you and Captain Occam. Please, let's open a case and this entire issue examined and put to rest. SilkTork, if I remember right you found some evidence that supported what I and others have been alleging about this. Could you please speak up? Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, Don't you think the rest of us might also be a little demoralized? Cla68 (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, since it has been brought up a couple of times, when I told Future Perfect at Sunrise that he had "created this monster", I was referring to the situation not to Mathsci. A number of editors and admins have created the current situation in which if someone speaks up and objects to what is going on, they get slapped with a warning or sanction that is recorded in the Log of Sanctions, Blocks, and Bans for the case, even though many of them, like me, have likely never made a single edit to any of the R&I articles. This is the monster that Future Perfect has unapologetically helped create. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Case against Mathsci

First of all, I owe Johnuniq an apology, as my response to his challenge to produce evidence with diffs has gone taken almost week. Below I attempt to answer his challenge with some evidence showing why a case to examine Mathsci and his administrator enablers is warranted. Cla68 (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Outings

Mathsci has reportedly outed or revealed inappropriate personal information about other editors on four occasions.

  • 1. 2006 This was presented in the 2010 case. Roger Davies removed the diff from the findings because of its sensitive nature. I don't know who it was that Mathsci outed.
  • 2. August 2011. I'm told that in the edit summary, Mathsci revealed Mikemikev's real name along with a reportedly homophobic comment, "Stick to your boyfriend, and the sheep." Fred Bauder, who oversighted the edit, appears to have stated in August 2011 that the Committee was aware of what took place. Perhaps they can confirm if the information I have is true? If the information I have is not accurate, they need to say so so that I can strike this, as it is extremely pejorative about Mathsci and unfair if inaccurate.
  • 4. In spite of that warning, in April 2012, Mathsci again revealed inappropriate personal information about an editor, which necessitated oversighting of the edit. From what I understand, the edit linked a Wikipedia editor to an account in another Internet forum, where the editor had included personal information about him/herself. The editor's participation in that off-wiki forum had no relevance to the discussion at hand. Mathsci was not blocked for this edit, or even warned, as far as I know.
Wikihounding

Mathsci wikihouds and threatens editors with whom he has had disagreements. I present one example below, involving Miradre, who was an active editor until the end of November 2011, then edited as Acadēmica Orientālis from February until July 2012. The editor is not banned or blocked from Wikipedia. I will notify both accounts of this discussion. I'm not aware of this evidence having been introduced previously before ArbCom.

  • In July 2011, Miradre made some edits to the R&I articles that Mathsci apparently did not approve of, so Mathsci left a long, confrontational, and rather hostile warning on Miradre's talk page.
  • Mathsci then edit wars to restore that and other warnings to Miradre's user talk page after Miradre removes them: [10] [11] [12]. In that last edit, Mathsci threatens Miradre with a community ban in the edit summary.
  • Mathsci also threatened Miradre with community bans on two other occasions: [13] [14]. In the 2010 R&I case, a formal finding had been made that Mathsci "routinely threatens other editors with blocks". Apparently, he still does.
  • Miradre was topic banned from R&I. Mathsci, however, followed Miradre to other topic areas. He revert-warred or campaigned against Miradre's edits to the article Academia, an article that Mathsci had not previously edited. [15] [16] [17] [18]
  • Mathsci also opposed Miradre or messed with his/her edits at the article Public broadcasting, another article that Mathsci had not previously edited: [19] [20] [21]
  • Mathsci reverted Miradre at NPR, the only edit Mathsci ever made to that article [22]
  • Mathsci reverted Miradre twice at Social anthropology, the only edits Mathsci ever made to that article: [23] [24]/[25]
  • Mathsci reverted Miradre four times at Groupthink, the only edits Mathsci ever made to that article: [26] [27] [28] [29]
  • Mathsci accused Miradre of being a friend of another editor [30]. Somehow, Mathsci thought there was some kind of connection involving Sweden.
  • As far as I know, Miradre never said on-wiki that he/she lives in Sweden. Mathsci, however, confronts Miradre with it at least twice: [31] [32]. That second diff could be interpreted as extremely insulting. If Miradre never revealed that he/she lives in Sweden, this could also be interpreted as an attempted outing and as meeting the definition of harrassment.
  • Later, Miradre asks Mathsci to respect his/her privacy. The following exchange then took place:

Statement by Johnuniq

It is hard to see how a further discussion on this issue would assist the encyclopedia, particularly after:

  • Amendment request Initiated by The Devil's Advocate on 25 July 2012; closed around 18 September 2012.
  • R&I2 Initiated by Cla68 on 22 October 2012; closed around 8 November 2012.

SightWatcher's contributions suggest that the last two edits not connected with R&I disputes were on 15 September 2012 and 25 February 2012. My view is that more emphasis should be placed on the encyclopedia, and less on R&I issues. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Cla68's case against Mathsci

The case presented by Cla68 above demonstrates the adage that if fifty diffs and a wall of text are necessary to demonstrate a problem, there probably is not a significant problem. Arbitration asserts that conduct can be assessed without regard to circumstances, nevertheless, comments such as "Miradre made some edits to the R&I articles that Mathsci apparently did not approve of" distort reality because the matter was much bigger than what Mathsci approved of. I was partly involved and know that many good editors strongly opposed Miradre's edits as UNDUE POV pushing, and the user was topic banned for six months (at ANI), and they have not edited since being unable to promote the idea that "group differences in intelligence, which may in part be due to genetic factors" accounts for why some groups (aka races) are more successful than others—the heart of the R&I POV pushing issue. The majority of Cla68's links attempt to establish that Mathsci has hounded Miradre, but, for example, this NPR diff where Mathsci removed some text with summary "rv undue content" is exactly what should occur at Wikipedia. What Cla68's links do establish is that Mathsci believes Miradre has made problematic edits which need to be checked—that is a fair assessment backed by the community as shown by the topic ban. Outing is not permitted, but I am unable to assess the revdeleted links, however Matchsci should not refer to other editors except by their user name (and a gratuitous mention of the full name of an arbitrator, however obvious, should not occur). If Mathsci violates CIVIL or HARASS, a case should be made at a suitable noticeboard before throwing mud on an arbitration page. The quote starting "group differences" is from this edit; see my comment dated 10:45, 23 February 2012 on the talk page for some background (diff). Johnuniq (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

In a statement initially posted here (but moved to talk), Cla68 is resorting to standard debating techniques, presumably to avoid having to substantiate their case against Mathsci, or to discuss whether they are in fact proxying for a banned user. Every lawyer knows that when a judge has exposed the weakness of their case, a useful response is to provoke the judge, hoping to elicit a response that would assist with an appeal, or even cause the judge to recuse. That technique should not be rewarded here.

This amendment request was started by a user who has not edited the encyclopedia since February (with one minor exception in September). SightWatcher's only recent activity has been related to poking Mathsci, and even that ceased two weeks ago. This request should be closed now—if Mathsci does anything in the future to cause concern, an untainted editor can raise the matter.

The way to stop repeated disruption is to stop it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Professor marginalia

Yougottabekidding!

If anybody falls for this bait (arbitrators, you're anybodies too) you're not being helpful in reducing disruption here. You're allowing yourself to be played.

It goes like this: when a decision's been made, and some user (puppets, much of the time but not not every time) pops the BigStinkbombs to unwind it all - it's not the user(s) targeted that are responsible for the "disruption" but the rest of us that chase and flap all about in these BigStinkbombs like moths to a flame.

Arbitration's ONLY function is to diagnose remedies when the "anybody can edit" needs umpires. Arbitrators are the umpires. Not that the umpire's call can never change, but it sure isn't the least bit constructive if the umpire's call can be changed for no other reason than because the injured player just won't stop making a nuisance of himself perpetually bellyaching about it. Professor marginalia (talk) 12:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: Speaking as one of the maybe increasingly few editors who's genuinely grateful for the arbitration system no matter what decision it comes to because whatever decision in comes to, at least it's a decision, (a constructive step in and of itself), I have found this case immensely frustrating because it never ends. Decisions are too ambivalently expressed to be taken seriously as decisions! Decisions in this case have been treated not as "closing doors" but as opening new ones to argue the dispute again, and again. The problems exploding in R/I articles never really stemmed from Mathsci's "behavior". The initial R/I decision by arbcom may have lent more weight to the role of Mathsci's "attitude" than I agreed with, but by any measure since those supposed "behavior" issues have only arguably become even more "disruptive" after the won't-take-no-for-an-answer socks, trolls, and their apologist whoevers went off and re-litigated the same old issues, wikilawyered, continuing their crusade to circumvent what should have been resolved disputes through endless re-dispute, re-negotiated, re-thinked resolutions. That continued disruption is maybe half attributable to the "won't-take-no-for-an-answer" socks/trolls etc AND their apologists, who continue to offer EXCUSES for what's only more obvious today than it was when the initial R/I conflagrations were brought before the arbcom. The other half is a rag-tag, defacto coalition formed of those hedging or rethinking their own decisions, and those seeking to piggyback some of their own past and otherwise unrelated or meta-complaints about particular users. Mathsci's a rational human being, but he's not Mr. Unfailingly Polite Diplomat either. I don't know that any rational human being can be unfailingly polite, patient in the face of the infinitely crazy, "wont-take-no's", flowing in to comlain in this community, nor should they and thus -- here we are.
I really don't want to rehash the full R/I case because it's a waste of this community's time and an insult to its intelligence. I will say the R/I parties thus far sanctioned in the dispute are the most pathetically obvious agents of tricksy proxy/tag team/canvassed/sock editing that I've personally encountered on the wiki and whose sanctions are well founded and yet, still, doubts are raised here as if these "doubts" are a damaging case against Mathsci (and now Future Perfect)? Who are we kidding? This would have been a "well in hand" "dispute resolution" in anybody's hands if but for the zombie proxies and recent entrants/agents (and antics) seeking to piggy-back oldstanding personal grievances unto an over-arching, almost atmospheric "meta-level" dispute resolution. In my view the value of dispute resolution, and arbcom, is in putting to rest such noisy distractions. This nonsense noise by those bellyaching ad nauseum, in my view, certainly shouldn't be rewarded by arbcom - and hey, I know it's not an easy job, but deep down inside do any of you really see any long term value in rewarding those who won't quit bellyaching?
I know bureaucracies are clumsy as a rule, but can't we expect from arbcom reasons, opportunities, to shut down or shut out the distractions? The stupid stuff? Arbcom in this case has not only hedged and confused nearly every call, but now its flakiness is threatening to sabotage the admins who don their helmets and dirty their shoes enforcing sanctions in disputes just as you've expressly charged them to do. Arbcom's at the same time threatening to undermine much of the progress they themselves have achieved in this case. It's so perverse that while the evidence *against* those sanctioned has only grown over the years since-to the point that only the world's biggest idiots would continue to furnish "excuses" for them-opportunists will always be there to exploit opportunities, won't they? And, as exemplified in this particular case, whose responsibility is it then when the dispute resolution system rewards those gaming it? Professor marginalia (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
So here's what I suggest:
  1. Reject this amendment request ASAP. The gaming employed at R/I back in 2009-10 was the source of tremendous disruption; the disruption fell to arbcom in 2010; several of the users sanctioned by the 2010 arbcom decision have continued, waging even more disruption by proxy; SightWatcher played no small part in it himself; the crusade-by-proxy continues; SightWatcher desires to have his participation (and others) be blacked out from the history of this case whenever Mathsci or anybody else attempts to show parallels or evidence of "the pattern" when the new proxies need dealing with in DR (hindering, in other words, appropriately dealing with them); AND this request was not prompted by any further dispute or R/I deterioration since the last R/I go-round but because SightWatcher just doesn't like its outcome-not that one, nor any of the previous outcomes of the case. (That's why he came to R/I in the first place--rebellion over the R/I 2010 sanctions!) There's no demonstrable merit to this request.
  2. Impose some kind of moratorium on requests to amend or appeal existing sanctions in R/I. The sanctions have improved the situation: mainspace disruptions have come way, way down; and socks and trolls have grown somewhat easier to detect, identify and deal with. So what's happening now is that the troublemakers' troublemaking efforts are "channeling" to DR pages, and ultimately here, which should render them considerably easier to deal with. But instead ARA (maybe because it's just so slow) is now something of a breeding ground where little nothings grow bigger and bigger, and metastasize, which is obviously counterproductive to reducing strife in wikipedia. None of the sanctions issued so far in R/I were so beyond the pale as to justify the chaos these incessant appeals leave in their wake.
  3. Please, please, please do whatever you can to Stop Sending Mixed Messages! At least in this case, R/I, "hints", "suggestions", "urgings" - they're counterproductive. Opponents are clinging to these hints and bits to reinforce their positions rather than relax them. And the mixed messages are also now complicating/implicating AE over enforcement of the sanctions you've imposed (potentially disastrous fallout, as I see it). I'm not suggesting anybody, certainly not arbcom, is to be "blamed" that their messages haven't connected. I'm simply trying to describe how, in this case, those kinds of messages too often get "heard" and lead to further disruption. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Heim

Risker, an entire case on one block, really? I was not under the impression AE required a consensus to impose a block or sanction; that rather, it was meant to be discretionary and require consensus to overturn. I wasn't a fan of the speed on the trigger, either, but a case would be really, really overkill and would undermine the discretionary nature of sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Fut.Perf.

@Risker: The opinions about the present block of Cla68 are currently pretty evenly divided on AE. I have made it clear that I don't consider it an "enforcement" block in the strict sense, i.e. I'm not squatting on its non-overturnability. As far as I am concerned, I will lift that block as soon as I am satisfied that it's no longer needed, and I've posted one proposal at AE [48] about an outcome that would allow me to do so. If somebody else wishes to overturn it, they can certainly do so. That's what we have block reviews for. But then they should take the responsibility for it themselves and should not expect me to do it for them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the AE thread has been closed with reminders to both Cla68 and Mathsci [49] (and I have lifted Cla's block accordingly). I hope this sorry sideline can now be put to rest and the committee can concentrate of what this request is nominally about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

About the new motions: These same proposals were voted on just one month ago, and rejected. When people elsewhere on this project keep re-proposing the same rejected ideas over and over again to wear down their opposition, e.g. on AfD, their heads typically make contact with aquatic vertebrates rather quickly. Since when is "keep reproposing the same thing until you get your way" an acceptable strategy for arbitrators? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: You say that this is where "Arbcom comes in", and that something needs to be done to stop encouraging "more ArbCom and ANI postings". Don't you see how self-contradictory that is? There is in fact a simple way for everyone out of this situation: everybody simply shut up about it. None of the recent confrontations has had anything to do with the content disputes about R&I; it's all been on a self-serving, self-perpetuating meta-meta-level. This problem will go away the moment everybody just stops talking about it – and that includes not just Mathsci and his sundry opponents, but also you arbitrators. Arbcom has become part of the problem here rather than the solution. Arbcom is not solving this issue; it is only providing it with a stage again and again and fuelling it on and on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Enric Naval

WP:AE has proposed a solution. Can you let the AE admins solve this? Arbcom is supposed to intervene when the community can't handle the issues, it's not supposed to shortcircuit AE. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I am expecting that Cla68's next edit to this page is a reply to Roger Davies' questions. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

The terms of SightWatcher's extended topic ban preclude him from making any request on behalf of others. He can make an appeal on his own behalf, but making requests for TrevelyanL85A2 (now AE-banned) or for Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate is not permitted. SightWatcher was advised by SilkTork in May to try to contribute outside project space.[50] At the end of June, EdJohnston spelt out that a request discussing TreveyanL85A2 was inadvisable;[51] at the same time MBisanz warned him that he would be blocked for one month if he attempted to make such a request.[52] If SightWatcher wishes to edit completely outside R&I with a different username, he can probably arrange that privately and discreetly with the arbitration committee.

Apart from monitoring sockpuppetry by Mikemikev (my userpage is protected because he made fun of my illness), I have not had any active involvement in project or article space related to WP:ARBR&I. Periodically there have been attempts to misuse arbitration procedures by a small group of editors, made up of the DeviantArt group of editors, some of whom are now site-banned, and their facilitators/sympathizers. I was a catalyst in bringing to light coordinated editing within the DeviantArt group, including proxy-editing and most recently sockpuppetry. Almost all of the arbcom procedures in 2012, although nominally for a different purpose, have been diverted into some attempt to "write me out of the equation" as Roger Davies has put it.

Each request after a certain stage degenerates into free-for-all criticisms of me which contradict previous arbcom findings and remedies (the original 2010 arbcom case, its amendment later that year (when sanctions on me were lifted after a four months) and the subsequently tightly framed review in March-May 2012). In this request SightWatcher has made no mention of me, but, as a named party, Cla68 took the opportunity almost immediately to divert the case in my direction. He has used this page and WP:AE as a place to make personal attacks, assuming some immunity in arbcom-related space. As Future Perfect at Sunrise carefully explained to him, it is possible to present arguments without undue personalization or insults. His attempted caricature of me here is not reflected in my editing history or the findings of the original report or review. The "battleground" word has been misused: originally phrased as applying to "ideological opponents", words dropped at my request, in the context used it referred almost exclusively to the DeviantArt editors.

So the post-review pattern is this: an arbcom request appears phrased in such a way that it might be related to me; an editor uses the opportunity to launch unreservedly into personal attacks on me, presuming immunity on arbcom-related pages; then I respond, or am asked to respond. That is my involvement at present with WP:ARBR&I. That is also how Cla68 has created interactions with me. We have participated in previous unrelated arbcom cases, eg MBLPs, and I believe he wished to use the review to criticize me for conduct unrelated to R&I.

The problem with any of the editing restrictions is that they are taken not to apply to arbcom-related pages. Roger wrote below that I was trolled, by which I assume he was referring to Cla68's first thinly veiled dig at me on this page. Later Cla68's gloves came off and he launched into a full-blown personal attack on me unsupported by diffs. He described me as "obsessive" and a "monster" out to destroy others—the Mathsci steamroller. As far as I am aware, that kind of conduct is not allowed anywhere on wikipedia, including arbcom-related space. Mathsci (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

SightWatcher has now commented on me, with the usual objective of the DeviantArt campaign: to have some sanction imposed on me. That and his own reluctance to take responsibility for previous coordinated editing, despite the off-wiki and on-wiki evidence in the review, is not a good sign. Captain Occam was himself just as evasive about that collaboration in this exchange on WP:ANI with Shell Kinney on 17 December 2010.[53] The pattern of "arbcom request on R&I issue --> parties sneaking in criticisms & requests for sanctions on Mathsci --> comments by me" could be halted by some form of motion restricting arbcom requests (the first step in the cycle), as Elen of the Roads suggests. Unsurprisingly SightWatcher is wikilawyering to keep that loophole open. He is also continuing to comment on other users, in this case The Devil's Advocate. In spite of the advice of SilkTork, EdJohnston and MBisanz, SightWathcer made a conscious decision to include TrevelyanL85A2, Cla68 and The Devil's Advocate in his request. He is now complaining about the consequences of that. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Hersfold's motions

Beyond arbcom requests initiated by SightWatcher, Trevelyan85A2 or by others on their behalf, I have not interacted with these users or discussed them since the review closed anywhere on wikipedia, except in responses on arbcom-related pages. My own 2 requests to arbcom have just been to amend slightly the wording of the review and have concerned only myself. Of the mentioned parties, as Newyorkbrad has already pointed out, TrevelyanL85A2 will not be able to edit wikipedia in the forseeable future because he has an indefinite ban enforced at AE after violating his extended topic ban.

In the final vote for the PD in the review, the drafting arbitrator Roger Davies made this comment:[54] "I don't think it's in the best interests of the project for him to be prohibited from reporting DeviantArt recruitees at SPI and so on. If, in the reports, there's a connection to Ferahgo or Occam, Mathsci needs to be free, provided he stays within the rules, to mention it. I say this because the alleged steady recruitment of apparent DeviantArt friends to edit the R&I topic is probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen. Let's not forget that Occam and Ferahgo are DeviantArt alumni." That is exactly what happened with Zeromus1. The sockpuppetry issues with him were handled privately off-wiki with checkusers: firstly with Amalthea; and later twice with AGK when more on-wiki evidence was available.

I have not made any requests related to SightWatcher since the review, on-wiki or off-wiki.Almost nothing has changed since the review, except for sporadic periods of intense disruption from troll socks of a community-banned user. That user is wholly unrelated to WP:ARBR&I. On this page I mentioned three bits of advice or warnings SightWatcher received in May and June from SilkTork, EdJohnston and MBisanz (diffs were added at Future Perfect at Sunrise's request). In the absence of any interactions and SightWatcher's own very rare editing, almost all in project space, Hersfold's motions do not seem to address any problems of conduct that have actually occurred or have any vague likelihood of occurring in the future. Nothing has happened since the last set of motions, except for SightWatcher making this request on behalf of himself and three users whom he is not allowed to mention. The only possible consequence of the motions would be that sockpuppets like Zeromus1, who seriously disrupted the last request for an arbcom case, would go undetected. That would seem to run completely contrary to Roger Davies' reasoning above. Mathsci (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Hersfold writes, "if Mathsci were to stop editing R&I topics, ...". Since he was site-banned and community-banned, I have identified lots of sockpuppets and ipsocks of Mikemikev. That does not appear to be "editing R&I topics". I occasionally have to comment in arbcom-related space, as here, but again that it not "editing R&I topics". In the review the finding was that my reporting at SPI was quite accurate. Mikemikev accounts for almost all the sockpuppetry in R&I. Then there is the quite separate matter of Echigo mole. His socking, trolling and wikihounding have nothing to do with R&I. A question was asked about his attempted harassment of me in the review. His ways of socking keep changing but his edits are usually easy to identify. Most recently 6 open proxy socks of his were blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise and Reaper Eternal. I have participated here because I was mentioned by Cla698, in a negative way, when there was no need. Mathsci (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • On his user talk page and here Cla68 has indicated or "mooted" that he might be requesting a new arbcom case involving FPaS [55] as well as "evidence [which] directly touches on an item that I'm not allowed to comment on on-wiki at the moment, except on ArbCom pages like AE". Until it is clear how Cla68 intends to proceed, it seems premature to pass or discuss any motions that involve his actions and other users' reactions. Mathsci (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • David Fuchs, Sir Fozzie and Hersfold were inactive during the R&I review. My evidence and arbcom's findings in that review covered coordinated editing of R&I articles (to bypass topic bans) as well as coordinated editing on an RfC/U on WeijiBaikeBianji. That editing was not, as now, entirely restricted to interactions in arbcom space. If arbitrators are now proposing to modify the remedies, could they please confer with those who examined the evidence in detail, including the off-wiki evidence? Roger Davies was extremely careful and skillful in what evidence he elicited and used. As a result, very late in the day, there were findings and remedies on SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2. Despite being informed by the clerks, neither participated in the review. Consequently, following the review, some matters were left unresolved. As Roger put it, the issue of recruitment of friends is "probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen". If SightWatcher can have a fresh start under a new username, known only to arbcom, why not? Mistakes have been made and lessons learnt. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Cla68 has just made 2 outspoken suggestions concerning Future Perfect at Sunrise[56] and me. [57] These suggestions, one involving an WP:IBAN with Captain Occam, are extraordinary. No diffs, just unsubstantiated personal attacks. Cla68 mentions "wiki-hounding by Captain Occam". There has been no wikihounding by Captain Occam. By Echigo mole, yes. But these are two quite different people. There has been socking by Ferahgo/Occam (Zeromus1), handled in private. Cla68 also mentions: "Future Perfect at Sunrise's strong personal feelings ... towards Mathsci ..." Groan. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Have I been trolled again? Cla68 has just given examples of the "evidence" he would present in the arbcom case he has in mind.[58] The first diff is taken from Loosmark's discussion page at ACE2010. Here's what actually happened: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/Loosmark I objected to Loosmark's suitability as an arbcom candidate because of multiple previous EE sanctions. Within a few days he was blocked as a sockpuppeteer first by Avraham for a month and then indefinitely by Timotheus Canens. Yet Cla68 writes that I "objected to Loosmark's participation on wikipedia." How does "candidacy for arbcom" morph to "participation on wikipedia"? Mathsci (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The second piece of Cla68's "evidence" refers to TrevelyanL85A2's unsuccessful appeal at WP:AE against MastCell's 1 month block, where Collect repeatedly intervened to take potshots at me, using the phrase "battleground", as he had done previously at WP:AN.[59] (Collect subsequently received a log warning for disruptive conduct[60] and has for the last six months respected that warning.) Cla68 writes, "Collect objected to your behavior related to Captain Occam", but Captain Occam was not mentioned at all by anybody. This type of systemetic misrepresentation is the basis of Cla68's repeated claims of an ongoing feud with a user who has been site-banned for over a year now. It is not possible for a wikipedian to be in dispute with a site-banned user. Yet Cla68 continues suggesting that impossible scenario. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Cla68 explained in the MfD in March on User:Cla68/threat charges that statements added to this "list" would shame those who had made them. The "threat charges" subpage was deleted as a result of the MfD and later speedy-deleted when Cla68 attempted to restore it elsewhere. He then placed it on his user page [61] and, after objections to that, on his user talk page. The list contained entries by Prioryman, Will Beback, Future Perfect at Sunrise and two entries by me, one originally added by a troll sock of a banned user. Several uninvolved participants at the MfD, in particular the proposer Bwilkins, wrote that the list, originally a joke, had become little more than a thinly disguised "shit-list". With hindsight that does seem to be the case. Related problems emerged at the same time during Cla68's unsuccessful arbcom request for amendment to have his WP:ARBCC topic ban partially lifted in March. Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad

AE or community sanctions, particularly if minor, should preferably be appealed where they were imposed, not here. Arbcom requests are a last resort and immensely time-wasting and draining (R&I fatigue syndrome).

The arbitration committee can decide on a quick "rule of thumb" for when amendments, clarifications and most importantly new cases related to WP:ARBR&I are appropriate. The original case concerned content editing in topics related to WP:ARBR&I and conduct in the first half of 2010. The review concerned content editing in topics related to WP:ARBR&I and conduct from summer 2010 to the beginning of 2012. Discussing matters unrelated to content editing is probably the main factor which has allowed arbcom pages to degenerate into what often resembles the courtroom scene in Alice in Wonderland. Any new case, such as Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence 3 (please, please, no!), should be directly related to content editing in WP:ARBR&I. Cla68's Race and intelligence 2 was completely divorced from issues of content editing in R&I topics and the same is even truer of Cla68's more recent proposal for a new case. It is without merit—another one of Cla68's bad jokes—and should be nipped in the bud.

If I had called Cla68 a "monster" created by an unnamed administrator or described him as "the Cla68 tank engine," folks like Sir Fozzie would have good reason to raise objections. I have not done so. Sir Fozzie is now just trying to recycle his first failed motion. That motion failed because of objections about micromanagement from administrators at AE, particularly Timotheus Canens. Nothing has changed except that Cla68 has been blocked for making personal attacks on me in arbcom-related space. Since voting in the election is over now, I can reveal that I privately asked Newyorkbrad and NuclearWarfare if there was a way to deal with Cla68's disruptive attacks on this page ("the Mathsci steamroller", etc). Apparently nothing could be done.

As Newyorkbrad has said, please could those supporting either motion point to any interactions with Cla68 or SightWatcher that have occurred recently outside arbcom space. The thinking behind the motions is apparently that no restriction applies within arbcom space. That is presumably why Cla68 has been allowed, even encouraged, to engage in personal attacks on this page despite his AE restriction. Their motions would not prevent comments in arbcom-related space, which is the only place they have ever happened.

If editors have been sanctioned at AE and are unhappy about their sanctions, they should appeal those sanctions at AE. It is gaming the system to play off AE administrators against arbitrators as Cla68 has done here. There is also no reason for other editors to make appeals on their behalf. SightWatcher's case is special. In matters concerning R&I, his topic ban precludes him from making appeals on behalf of other editors or suggesting sanctions on other editors. Appeals to lift indefinite topic bans at AE usually require some sign of normal editing in content space away from the topic; in normal circumstances, the same is presumably true of appeals to arbcom. Arbcom should give clear advice on future appeals by SightWatcher. I am surprised he did not consult arbcom privately, on arbcom-l, before making this request.

Trolling by Echigo mole is a red herring and seems to be under control at the moment.

Interaction bans with site-banned editors

Since a handful of arbitrators (Hersfold, David Fuchs, SirFozzie) are suggesting an interaction ban with a site-banned editor TrevelyanL85A2 and I cannot understand what they might mean by that or how it would be justified, I have raised the question with the community on WP:AN. Motions concerning interactions with site-banned editors are unprecedented. Such a motion, if it passed, would send out a mixed message, both confusing and unhelpful. It would have been simple enough just to close the request for amendment and, without a motion, declare a moratorium on future requests of this kind (except with the prior agreement of arbcom through arbcom-l). Mathsci (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 is editing here on behalf of Captain Occam

The new "evidence"[62][63][64] produced by Cla68 apparently comes from an external source. Cla68 writes, "I am told" when referrring to the diff concerning Mikemikev. His source is without doubt Captain Occam, since Captain Occam made a big issue of the edit summary[65][66][67][68][69][70][71] which was rev-delled quite rapidly, through requests to Fred Bauder, LHvU and arbcom-l. Mikemikev outed himself in his seventh edit to wikipedia. I requested my edit summary be deleted because it contained a bad joke (Mikemikev had socked with a friend during a birthday celebration). Captain Occam saw that edit summary in the brief period when it was visible. He discussed it in private email with 2 ex-arbitrators (FB and CM) and possibly in the evidence he presented in private during the review (Roger Davies will correct me if I am wrong). That evidence was rejected. The only significant thing here is that Cla68 could only know about any of this through private communication with Captain Occam, which beyond a shadow of a doubt has taken place. Cla68 has even supplied the oversighted edit summary with his own commentary. (Clerks, arbcom-l and oversight have been alerted.) It's all very well that he's using Captain Occam to help him in this way, but a motion was passed prohibiting editors acting as proxies for site-banned editors. That includes Captain Occam.

Captain Occam has become active recently on wikipediocracy. From what he has written there he appears to be the perpetrator of the poison pen letter that was sent to me on 15 October, two days after being discharged from the Heart Hospital in Marylebone and almost immediately after I had parenthetically mentioned the DeviantArt sockpuppet Zeromus1 on-wiki. That letter was immediately forwarded to arbcom-l. Hersfold requested the headers and Jclemens wrote a very kind and sympathetic response. Thinking user:Stanistani was trustworthy (Zoloft on WR/WO), I later sent him a copy of the letter by wiki-email with all the personal details left in (eg my telephone number in France, the postal code of the college in Cambridge where I was a fellow). That was passed on to user:EricBarbour and then to Captain Occam, who presumably was one of those who wrote it in the first place, since he had threatened to release similar personal details ("outing") on wikipediocracy. Cla68's other vocabulary here (including his unsupported claims of an ongoing feud with Captain Occam) are other indications of off-wiki collusion with Captain Occam. Cla68 is an administrator over on wikipediocracy, so the means of contacting or being contacted by Captain Occam are in place. The diffs that Cla68 has produced could come from no other source. It was an act of great foolishness of Cla68 to act in this way.

The first diff from 2006 (!) similarly is related to the deleted article Myron Evans which survives as the stub ECE theory. It was originally supplied by Ludwigs2 during WP:ARBR&I, perhaps also indirectly coming through Captain Occam. There was no outing since the person, Myron Evans' self-identified cyber-secretary, actually signed his initials in the messages on the talk page Talk:Myron Evans. (Administrators can view the talk page and its archives.) That issue was handled by arbitrators during the 2010 arbcom case, starting with an email to Carcharoth on 17 August 2010, so Cla68 had no reasonable justification for bringing it up again here. Perhaps this was also submitted privately in Captain Occam's evidence to Roger Davies. Other claimed cases of outing involve an edit by me followed by an edit by Ferahgo in the R&I review that were "vaped" by Roger Davies. I think these were mentioned in the 26 March evidence of Ferhago/Occam that was forwarded to me by Roger Davies and later discounted. As far as outing is concerned, Occam revealed his identity first on his user page and then more publicly by linking to a letter written under his real name to The Economist which he discussed on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Ferahgo's RL name was on her user page until just before her ban. It is is still in the signatures on her uploaded images.

I think other rejected parts of Ferahgo & Occam's private submission concerned Miradre/Academica Orientalis, a user who participated in the review and in 2012 edited logged off from a series of IPs in Sweden. I was one of a large number of people who found Miradre's editing problematic. They were reported on numerous occasions at AE and on ANI. After a topic ban in R&I which almost became a community ban, AO reappeared after a long wikibreak to to insert undue content on evolutionary psychology into every conceivable article on wikipedia, in particular high profile articles like archaeology and anthropology. I was one of many to see the problem there. Professional anthropologists, like Slrubenstein and Maunus, could not have any meaningful dialogue with AO and were often driven to their wit's ends by AO's circular arguments. AO participated in the R&I review: many of their assertions there, in chorus with the troll sock Alessandra Napolitano, were contradicted by Roger Davies. AO's editing continued unabated until they started their current wikibreak in July 2012, following a community imposed topic ban. What relevance does Miradre/AO have to this request for amendment, apart from it being an idée fixe of Captain Occam? It was presumably part of the rejected evidence he and his girlfriend submitted privately during the R&I review. What in fact happened in the meantime? Exasperated by AO's editing, Maunus made a report at WP:ANI where, after a long discussion involving a large number of different editors, Academica Orientalis was topic banned by the community from all articles related to nature and nurture for 6 months starting in July.[72] That community topic ban contradicts completely what Cla68 has written and tried to suggest.

So apparently what Cla68 has reproduced on this page are Captain Occam's private notes in the DeviantArt campaign to "remove Mathsci from the equation". The diffs have all been shown to arbcom before, some in private. All they indicate here is that Cla68 has been caught "red-handed". Undoubtedly Captain Occam saw an opportunity too good to be missed and Cla68 happily acquiesced. It was a foolish idea to use this request for amendment as a springboard to relaunch Captain Occam's threadbare and tiresome campaign. Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Captain Occam's offer to supply "evidence"

Captain Occam wrote this on wikipediocracy on 11 December:[73]

Well, looks like this situation's back at ArbCom again. I wonder if this time they're actually going to do something, instead of just closing their eyes and hoping the problem will go away.

There's something I asked in the other Mathsci thread, that I'd appreciate getting an answer to. As EricBarbour knows, I'm fairly knowledgeable about the history of R&I and Mathsci related disputes. Would it be of any value to the people here if I were to post some of the evidence I have about this as it relates to people other than Echigo Mole, or the other editors involved in the current request? The current discussion at ArbCom seems to be only looking at what's happened in the last couple months, and at the battle between Mathsci and Echigo Mole, but to someone who's familiar with the history of this situation there's a lot more that could be looked at. Just going with one example, I'm aware of four times Mathsci has outed other editors and had his posts suppressed by oversight, but only one of the four was directed at a banned user.

If something like this is better handled via PM, let me know and I won't talk about it in public anymore. But I'd rather not PM Cla68 out of the blue, when I don't even know whether he's interested in discussing this with me.

EDIT: I guess this is best taken care of via PM.

No further comment is necessary. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI and wikihounding

Hersfold writes that his motion is to discourage SPI reports. My SPI reports, encouraged by checkusers like Deskana, almost all concern trolling by Echigo mole and happen when he trolls. Most recently Echigo mole made edits connected with the following advanced mathematical articles created or substantially edited by me:

As Coroner's jury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Echigo mole inserted incorrect mathematical information in two places, left trolling comments on talk pages and then on WikiProject Mathematics. Deskana encouraged me to make a report at WP:SPI. He ran a checkuser, discovering several other possible socks, and Coroner's jury was blocked. These are the day-to-day sockpuppetry issues which I encounter. They have nothing to do with WP:ARBR&I, Cla68, SightWatcher or the AE-banned user TrevelyanL85A2. They are not dealt with in any way by Hersfold's motions, which create the precedent of an interaction ban with an indefinitely blocked user and micromanaging WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Allowing things to play out endlessly in arbcom-space

Please could arbitrators shut down this discussion? The request for amendment has been refused and if necessary advice could be given placing a moratorium on requests of this kind in the near future. I have not made any such request recently. The FIVE failed requests that have been made were by:

  • Keystone Crow (June)
  • TrevelyanL85A2 (July)
  • The Devil's Advocate (July)
  • Cla68 (October)
  • SightWatcher (December)

Each time except the first, nuked on sight, I have had to respond in the relevant arbcom space. Each request has dragged on interminably when they could have been shut down immediately. The minority motions failed in November. Now the same minority, none of whom participated in the review, are trying to modify the remedies of that review and incorporate their failed November motion. As Newyorkbrad has commented, none of them have pointed to any explicit problematic behaviour that would justify their remedies. From Newyorkbrad's comments here, no arbitrators have yet figured out a sensible way to halt the cycle of requests. Wikipedians here have suggested quite sensibly a moratorium. Simply telling people to shut up and stop talking about stuff that has nothing whatsoever to do with editing of articles in the R&I topic area. That would put an end to this exasperating series of untenable requests, which at the moment shows no sign of ending. Arbitrators can make it end by declaring a moratorium.

There is no problematic editing in R&I at the moment, so no need for any case. Sockpuppet issues are easily dealt with, either directly [74] or at WP:SPI.[75] Both motions involve TrevelyanL85A2 who, as two arbitrators have pointed out, is unlikely ever to be allowed to return to editing on wikipedia. That is one indication of how poorly the motions reflect anything that has happened on wikipedia or is likely to happen. As Newyorkbrad has written elsewhere on wikipedia, a whole group of (cyber-)friends all over the US are probably now splitting their sides with laughter at the way they have trolled portions of arbcom. Mathsci (talk) 17:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Request

Could Cla68 please give straightforward replies to Roger Davies' two questions within the next few hours? Otherwise please could this request for amendment be archived promptly without further action? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

Mathsci is, once again, being played here, and it would be better if his reaction to being played wasn't quite so predictable, since it likely gives his harassers satisfaction when he reacts as he does. Nevertheless, he is, as usual, not the one at fault here, and I continue to believe that sanctioning him -- however superficially "fair" it may seem -- would be a gross injustice. However, something clearly needs to be done, so I would urge that Elen's position -- which is basically Silk Torx's position minus a sanction against Mathsci -- be seriously considered. If the people harassing Mathsci on Arb pages are forced to stop, Mathsci will have nothing to react to, and there will be peace on earth all around. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment from Collect

My name was mentioned above as " where Collect repeatedly intervened to use the phrase "battleground"." which is quite unfortunately a pure fabrication. I made one single post where I used the word precisely twice at [76]. The word "repeatedly" in common English usually means "multiple times" and once !- multiple times no matter who is doing the counting. An editor then asserted " Collect on the other hand is just making assinine trolling edits here " and the like, which I rather think does show a problem. Again - I am only posting here because of an egregious attack on me made above, whose clear falsity is readily determinable by anyone actually reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive118#TrevelyanL85A2 And for those who do not read the posts - my suggestion there was that trouting was sufficient. Collect (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@all: That other editor has altered and refactored his commentas above, and included a "disruptive editing" comment about me to boot. I assert that when an editor who has been mentioned on any noticeboard comments in direct reaction to such comments, that accusing that editor of "dsruptive editing" is absurd ab initio. I further suggest that such editor has an inexplicable interest in my fairly innocuous comments placed in reaction to my name being introduced into conversations on topics in which I have zero interest. My prior comment was in response to the original content of the prior post here, and when such posts get altered, it is proper for me to point that fact out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ideas by involving-himself-again NE Ent

  • The restriction on MathSci's on-wiki filing of enforcement requests imposed at the AE closing is a good idea and will help.
  • The committee needs to assert the proper hierarchy here; you guys were the ones elected (and if we community types don't like it, we have only ourselves to blame). AE should exist to assist you, not agitate things by attacking the committee and its clerks. To that end:
    • Pass a motion making it clear AC pages are under the scope of ArbCom and its clerks and AE may not restrict editors from editing the AC pages.
    • Unfortunately, the criticism isn't entirely unwarranted; specifically this "request" is insane -- it's four requests glommed together. Ideally ArbCom clerks would be more active and responsive. (e.g. Be nice if someone would answer the phone). This case should have been split into four and three summarily dismissed as not involving the OP.
  • All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: As this seems to have devolved into a pointless scuffle between Mathsci and Cla68, if ya'll can't quickly agree to do something, then quickly agree to do nothing -- declining the case removes the stage. Cla68 is ibanned from commenting about MathSci elsewhere, and MathSci is banned from initiating new actions. Problem solved. NE Ent 02:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Shoutouts

@RegentsPark Hopefully no one. That's the whole point. An ignored troll becomes a bored troll and bothers somebody else. NE Ent 01:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ErrantX

The core of this dispute that appears to remain is that Mathsci is unable to detach himself from the original, and new, criticisers. Mutual interaction bans are important for two reasons; first to stop the sort of nonsense we have been seeing and second to make absolutely clear to Mathsci that his behaviour is problematic too. One overriding impression I have gained from recent comments by him is that he has "won" this dispute - and as a result he appears to be gaming the system, where possible, to bring topic and interaction bans against others. He has continued disputes with at least some of these individuals off-wiki, which demonstrates a reluctance to drop the matter (after previous warnings r.e. battleground conduct).

As an totally uninvolved admin it was depressing to wander down this rabbit hole. My impression is that the original abitration findings failed to impress themselves on Mathsci and as such created this unfortunate situation. I really do think the committee needs to pass the mutual interaction bans to help wind down this matter. Failing that I am collecting evidence to request a full case some time in the new year where the committee will be able to review the whole sequence of events involving Arbitration Enforcement. --Errant (chat!) 13:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

My presumption r.e. the outing (which is very serious) by Mathsci has been addressed by the committee vis. strong words with Mathsci. I'm not sure I agree with that approach (we are hardly so lenient to most other editors showing such horrendous lapses of judgement or homophobia) but affirmation that *some* action was taken would be useful. --Errant (chat!) 10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by RegentsPark

I largely agree with Beyond My Ken above. Mathsci is not at fault here and sanctioning him would be unfair, and to some extent counter productive for the encyclopedia. It is easy to ask Mathsci to not 'feed the trolls', but the reality is that these socks are driven by an agenda and are unlikely to get bored and simply go away. And if we sanction Mathsci, then who's going to watch the trolls? --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Aprock

Agreeing largely with Johnuniq, Professor marginalia, Beyond My Ken, and RegentsPark. ArbCom is being played like a fiddle by proxies of banned users harassing Mathsci. That we have repeated disruptions related to editors in the topic area, but which don't relate to actual articles in the topic area only points to extensive gaming. aprock (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

Sorry, I've been busy with other matters and haven't followed the discussion the last couple days. I'm wondering if ArbCom should just open a case to examine the issues. In particular, I'm concerned with Future Perfect Sunrise's actions as admin. His block of Cla68 was obviously bad, and his premature closing of an RfE is questionable at best. I had completely forgotten about his big "FU" outburst at ArbCom until someone brought it up. To be honest, I'm not comfortable with Future Perfect working in AE. AE needs admins to make sound, rational decisions, not ones who inflame situations. AE covers multiple topic areas, so this issue more important than just R&I.
I'm less concerned with MathSci's WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. Perhaps they can tone it down a bit, but I get the feeling that this isn't going to end until they're removed from the situation.
Like I said, I haven't been following the discussion the last couple of days. I'm not sure what I missed, and I don't think I can catch up. Good luck, everyone. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by TheRedPenOfDoom

The continued allowance of bureaucratic Wikilawyering to harass someone who has been incredibly diligent in helping to apply and enforce the decisions of the ArbCom is really sad. The fact that there is any support for holding Mathsci responsible for the disruption caused by trolls and those attempting to evade ArbCom sanctions and harass him for his efforts is even sadder. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments

  • Awaiting statements. Note that the relevant case link is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review. Note also that TrevelyanL85A2 is blocked indefinitely, so I don't think we need to consider the request as to him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Cla68, you've linked to a post by TCanens - I don't follow, whose reaction in that post are you calling childish? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Seeing that Mathsci has raised this yet again at enforcement as a result of this case request (and the resulting admin frustration with Mathsci as a result) makes me think that we missed an opportunity to head off more issues by making the interaction ban mutual last time in the motion that was proposed. I'm neutral, towards leaning oppose to modify the other issues here. SirFozzie (talk) 05:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I've noted the unilateral block action taken by Future Perfect At Sunrise in the AE request based on this thread.. I think that this action will certainly be looked at (either in this request, or in the request for a full fledged case that is currently being mooted by Cla68). I would say FPaS's actions may not be strictly against consensus but solely on the basis that only a few folks had spoken, but I do note that FPaS's actions were unilateral and not in tune with those uninvolved administrators who had already commented on the AE request. SirFozzie (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, folks. It seems that *none* of you is interested in editing in the area of R&I. It is also obvious to everyone that these continued requests for sanctions or variations in sanctions is doing absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia, and is becoming increasingly disruptive. Please bear in mind that the Arbitration Committee's mandate is to address disruption on Wikipedia, not providing due process or "fairness" to any individual editor(s). I'm thinking that we extend all topic and interaction bans in this area to indefinite, with the opportunity to appeal in six months, and that Mathsci be included in topic/interaction ban. Much as I understand that Mathsci is being trolled here, at this point his reactions to the trolling have become more disruptive to the encyclopedia than the trolling itself, and he clearly needs a break from this area. And Future Perfect at Sunrise, please lift your block on Cla68; I don't want to have to hear an entire case because you're being inflexible on a block that is clearly not supported by the consensus of admins on AE. Risker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I sort of have to echo RIsker; what we have is a small-ish group of editors, none of whom seem to want to edit the R&I topic, and all of whom need to be kept away from each other. And at this point, that includes Mathsci; running to AE when we're already here was pretty much the definition of not helpful. I understand ou are getting trolled by a banned user, but every time this shows up I'm struck by how much battlefield conduct there is, and how much less of it there would be if the various parties would just act as if they had no need to comment on or to each other. Courcelles 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline: I don't see much merit in this request; Sightwatcher's Wikipedia activities now appear exclusively directed to protesting his ban.
    On the broader issues, it's probably not just Mathsci who's being trolled here.  Roger Davies talk 21:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Games are being played here, and it is time this was stopped. I would support extending topic/interaction bans to Mathsci, and also adding a provision that nobody involved in these bans can appeal or raise the issue on Wikipedia, not on AE or through these ArbCom pages. All communications related to these bans, including notifications about infringements, would need to come direct to ArbCom, and to ArbCom only, by email. These public requests simply inflame matters. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the Racepacket case has a model of interaction ban that could be useful here -- very broad, and pretty much a total cease and desist globally. Courcelles 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • First, comments on the initial request. SightWatcher, if you don't intend to edit R&I articles, I see no reason why you would need the topic ban lifted. You are not required to comment on any discussion related to R&I; while your name may be mentioned, you should be perfectly capable of ignoring them should you not wish to be involved. As to the rest of your request, you have no grounds from which to request the removal of other's sanctions; even if you did, the grounds on which you're requesting this are somewhat shaky. It seems as though the better approach would be to, as several other arbs have suggested, make the interaction bans mutual and in so doing prevent anyone involved from causing any problems in the area whatsoever, because they can't talk to one another. Would anyone care to post some motions to that effect? Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • decline' per all of the above really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There's a couple issues at play here; if Cla follows through, a case regarding FPaS is one of them that isn't really at issue regarding the initial request. As pointed out by Hers, I don't see how someone who isn't editing R&I articles is affected by a ban from them, or how they could be roped into the surrounding drama willingly therein; SightWatcher, I'd be happy for clarification on that point. I'm thinking Silk's idea might have merit to lessening the drama on-wiki, although given how invested the participants in I'm not sure that wouldn't just migrate the same issues into another sphere for them to blow back to Wiki with less noise but the same smell. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline this request. While there are wider issues with this topic area, I don't think we need to open a case to examine them at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline request and would consider both a motion that none of the four named can request an alteration/lifting of the sanction for the next year, and a working practice to allow the clerks to remove requests made on behalf of a third party in this manner. I am very reluctant to consider anything that looks like a sanction for Mathsci, but would strongly recommend he avoids reporting any of this group onwiki at AE, as all it is doing is painting a target on his back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Motions

Motion 1: Mutual interaction bans

1) In an effort to prevent further disruption of the Race & Intelligence topic area, all interaction bans implemented as part of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review are hereby amended to be mutual. Specifically, editors who actively contribute in the Race & Intelligence topic area are indefinitely prohibited from participating in any discussion about the conduct of SightWatcher (talk · contribs) and/or TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs), except to participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions, as necessary and within reason, when and only if their own conduct has been mentioned. Violations of this restriction may be enforced by block as outlined in this section, however violators should be given sufficient warning prior to enforcement.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. I think the crux here is if there's any reason for the involved parties to be communicating, period. From what I've seen it usually is only a prelude to grievances on all sides, and so a mutual ban seems a good option to try and prevent this occurrence in the future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. SirFozzie (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Little has changed since we previously rejected this idea except that another request for a clarification or amendment was filed and has been declined. There is no evidence that outside these arbitration pages themselves, Mathsci has been commenting, problematically or otherwise, on the users named. Thus, while I can understand the thinking behind this motion, I don't see it as helpful or necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. While I think in general interaction bans should be mutual, we've only just voted on this. My term on the committee ends in a few days, and new arbs wil be joining shortly. In this context, I'd prefer to leave the decision to the new committee. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. For lack of a finding essentially that would warrant a motion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. This one is a little over-reaching, as I mention in the comments below. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Per NYB and Casliber,  Roger Davies talk 16:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. This one doesn't follow from the evidence as being helpful. Courcelles 17:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. Per my comments at motion 2. AGK [•] 23:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. Risker (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrator Comments
Due to the broad nature of the interaction bans as passed in the review, this is the literal interpretation of "make the bans mutual" - however it may be a bit of overkill, and could catch some editors not involved in this mess completely unawares, hence that bit at the end about "sufficient warning". However, it would probably allay SightWatcher's concern - which I still don't really understand - that he could be sanctioned for something he's not doing. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
TrevelyanL85A2 is blocked indefinitely and won't be coming back anytime soon, so I don't follow why this motion would be needed as to him. SightWatcher, as Roger Davies has pointed out, hardly edits any more either; is there an example of a time when Mathsci commented about him, outside the arbitration pages themselves? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Motion 2: Mathsci interaction ban

2) Mathsci (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from participating in any discussion about the conduct of SightWatcher (talk · contribs). Cla68 (talk · contribs), and/or TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs), except to participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions, as necessary and within reason, when and only if their own conduct has been mentioned. Violations of this restriction may be enforced by block as outlined in this section.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. With Change SirFozzie (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    While it may not address all issues (I'd strongly advice Mathsci to back off of the sockpuppetry stuff; if you stop feeding the trolls, eventually they'll go away), this should help to reduce some of the drama in the area. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 15:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Though I do not think TrevelyanL85A2 should be included. Courcelles 17:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Same comments as on motion 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Given my term on the committee ends in a few days, and new arbs wil be joining shortly, I'd prefer to leave this decision to the new committee. PhilKnight (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. This doesn't tackle the underlying key issues.  Roger Davies talk 16:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
    I am deeply concerned about this motion and take this opportunity to provide detailed reasons for my opposition to it.
    • First, this motion does not flow from the original request, which makes its use procedurally questionable.
    • Second, the use of motions, per policy, are limited to matters which are "substantially undisputed", which is scarcely the case here. Arbitrators are not only unable to agree precisely what the root problem is but also who, if anyone, is responsible for creating the problem. We cannot craft a solution without consensus as to the problem.
    • Third, a similar motion failed a few weeks ago. Nothing has happened between then and now to justify overturning our October decision. There is no evidence that justifies the imposition of an interaction ban. Those already supporting should seriously consider whether it is right to endorse double jeopardy.
    • Fourth, during the currency of this amendment, WP:AE swiftly and efficiently put measures in place that will in all likelihood reduce ongoing problems, rendering this motion redundant.
    • Fifth, because of the grossly inappropriate latitude given to parties, this amendment request has as predicted become a vehicle for mudslinging, coatracking and personal attacks.
    • Sixth, I am dismayed that we are providing a platform to interaction-banned editors who are closely associated with site-banned editors. What's more, they are seemingly advancing identical arguments to those made by the site-banned people. These arguments have already been rejected on numerous occasions both by the committee and by the AE admins.
    In the light of the foregoing, this motion should be rejected and this amendment closed immediately.  Roger Davies talk 07:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Per NYB - also there would appear to be no process supporting arbcom making such a ruling without some mechanism which examined the evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Essentially with the same thinking as that in Roger's detailed rationale. Frankly, I thought we had learned our lesson from the last "gung-ho" motion that was initiated out of a clarification/amendment request; but in any event, I think both these motions are wholly unnecessary, and I would prefer we close this request without any action. (I am concerned that we will soon have to take remedial action in relation to this matter, but I do not think this is the right time to do so.) AGK [•] 23:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. Risker (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. I think we need a full case to look carefully into all the issues here. We have a problem which is not being resolved, and motions are perhaps not the appropriate way of gathering evidence and finding a solution - especially when the Committee is divided. If the community are concerned enough about the trolling of Mathsci, and about the impact the fall out from that is having, someone will no doubt put forward a case request in the new year. It may well be that those of us who are involved in arbitration are getting a distorted view of this, and we are seeing it as more disruptive than it is; it is up to the community to let us know how disruptive the matter actually is. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. I'm now thinking a case may be necessary as well. This does seem to be extending quite a good bit beyond what these motions could handle, and it's turning into a muddled mess. However, such a request may be better left until after new year's so we can have some fresher eyes looking at it. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrator Comments
This is the sort of "mutual" I think most people were thinking of; where Mathsci can't discuss those two. Note that this can pass alongside motion 1; the way motion 1 is worded, if Mathsci were to stop editing R&I topics, he would technically no longer be under the interaction ban if motion 2 were not in force as well. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Motion needs to add Cla68, I think we can drop the indef blocked user in its place, though, any objection to making the change? SirFozzie (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, TrevelyanL85A2 is pretty much never coming back, so passing any motion involving them is a waste of time. Courcelles 21:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not much of a waste when we're passing a motion anyway, and not including him makes it appear as though we're singling out SightWatcher for some reason. SirFozzie, do you mean Cla68 should not comment on SW/Trevelyan, or that Mathsci also shouldn't comment on Cla68? Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
That Mathsci also shouldn't comment on Cla68. SirFozzie (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments on motions

I'm also wondering if it would be worthwhile to add an admonishment to "don't feed the trolls," but not sure. I don't believe it is appropriate to add a moratorium on appeals of these or related restrictions; it should be clear enough anyway that we're not willing to consider any for some time, particularly not from these grounds. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there is pretty well universal agreement at this point that Mathsci is inadvertently rewarding the banned users who have been harassing him, or perhaps others who are trollishly imitating the banned users, and that by this point he should have heeded the advice he has received from multiple parties not to react so predictably. It would clearly be better if Mathsci were to back away from dealing with them, except when essential (such as when there is trolling on a page Mathsci was already on, as opposed to his seeking it out elsewhere), and if someone else would take on the task for awhile. However, I remain reluctant to enforce this in the form of any kind of a motion, which would lead to its own set of arguments and rules-lawyering and which I know would be terribly demoralizing for Mathsci. Can't someone think of another way for everyone out of this situation, which has become repetitious and tedious for everyone, and a giant diversion from everyone's editing, whether about race and intelligence or anything else. This is one of those odd situations where, if I had to explain to a non-Wikipedian what issues come before the Arbitration Committee, I wouldn't even know how to begin explaining it. In my experience, when an on-wiki problem has become that abstruse, it means we have gotten too caught up in internal affairs and diverted from the mission of Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"too caught up in internal affairs and diverted from the mission of Wikipedia." Agree. And, I suppose, that's where ArbCom comes in. What we have, though, is a situation where people are broadly in agreement that there is a problem, but are sadly reluctant to do anything about it. While the Committee is in disharmony with itself, with other users, and with AE admins over if we should do anything and what we should do, the situation does not get better and encourages more ArbCom and ANI postings. I agree with the implication of " Can't someone think of another way for everyone out of this situation" that what we need is ideas and discussion, and the discussion should take place here, not on the ArbCom list, so that those who may be impacted by our decision, such as the participants and the ANI and AE admins, are given the opportunity to participate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To Cla68: my comment regarding Mathsci's demoralization referred primarily to the fact that he has repeatedly been harassed by banned users and/or their imitators, and continues to be criticized (sometimes more justifiably than others) for his choices in how to respond to them—choices that he shouldn't be in the position of having to make in the first place. This is a pretty much separate question from how to handle the interaction bans. I understand that all the good-faith editors involved in this request have probably had their fill of the issues raised and would presumably rather be doing something else with their wikitime. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@Cla68: please clarify the following points for me:

  1. Can you please explain why, given your interaction ban, you have made numerous comments about Mathsci both here and on the talk page that go far beyond the core issues of this amendment?
  2. Can you please state whether you have or have not collaborated with banned users in preparing your comments for this page?

Thank you,  Roger Davies talk 07:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • For the record: Elen of the Roads has indicated by e-mail that she intended to vote against both motions, and that she will do so when she is next online. Therefore, both motions fail (because it is arithmetically impossible for either to pass), and I have asked the clerks to archive the motion at their leisure. My colleague and I have also agreed that this entire clarification request may be archived, so I have asked the clerks to archive all of this section. AGK [•] 01:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Speed of light (December 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Seraphimblade Talk to me at 06:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Arbitration case or decision:


Statement by Seraphimblade

Brews ohare is subject to a topic ban as follows: "...the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed.", as passed by motion in WP:ARBSL.

This topic ban is more difficult than most to interpret. Everything that occurs in the universe, from a sunspot to biology to art to music to digestion is, however indirectly, related to fundamental principles of physics. I presume that the Committee did not mean the topic ban to be interpreted that broadly, as this would amount to an effective site ban, and if that were the intent, presumably the Committee would have simply imposed a site ban.

Recently, a request for arbitration enforcement was brought by JohnBlackburne on the grounds of an edit made by Brews ohare to free will [84], and subsequent discussion of this edit [85]. The opinion of myself [86], and three other uninvolved admins [87], [88], [89], was that this edit was a violation of the topic ban. However, two other uninvolved administrators disagree and do not find this a violation: [90], [91]. As there is significant disagreement here in good faith, it would be appreciated if the Committee could clarify the following:

  • Did Brews ohare's edit to free will violate the topic ban?
  • More generally, regardless of the answer to the above question, how broad is "broadly interpreted" in the physics topic ban, given that a sufficiently broad interpretation covers everything in the known universe? Or to rephrase, how close must an edit of Brews' be to fundamental physics to breach the topic ban?

Help on this question would be most appreciated, as it is an unusual case, and it would be helpful to both Brews and the administrators tasked with enforcing this restriction to have clarity on where exactly the line is drawn here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Brews ohare: Please don't think of this as a referendum on your character. I don't know you, and while I recall having seen your name before, I don't recall in what context, nor have I interacted with you during editing. I don't know a thing about your character. What we do know is that when an issue comes to AE, it is a reflection of disruption to the project serious enough that the ArbCom had to draw a bright line. The only thing we ask there is whether the edits in question stepped over that line.
Newyorkbrad: I would agree myself that common-sense interpretations should work in this case. However, I've seen both NuclearWarfare and Coren around many times, and found them to be reasonable and intelligent. If both of them disagree with me in good faith, that's certainly enough for me to request more input on the matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by brews_ohare

As stated by Seraphimblade, the sanction as formulated covers a lot of territory.

One can take the view of some that brews-ohare is generally a problem, and any action to curtail his activities is a plus for WP. On this basis, a broadly worded sanction is ideal as it allows action to be taken for any reason. From this position, a clarification is exactly the wrong thing to do. Taking this view, the issue really is not what happened in this particular incident, but whether this is an opportunity to further curtail the activities of brews_ohare. Those seeing the matter in this light are not interested in the particulars of this incident, nor even whether they are actually an example of a pervasive pattern in brews-ohare's activities on WP. The assumption is that the mere fact that Blackburne has (again) brought brews-ohare before Enforcement is ipso facto sufficient evidence that brews_ohare is a problem and should be be disciplined.

My view is that Blackburne is the problem. He exhibits a strange fascination with making my activities on WP difficult, and this particular incident is only the latest example. I wish to assure all Administrators involved here that I am not interested in disrupting WP nor in thumbing my nose at Administrators. My participation here is strictly aimed at improving existing articles and writing new ones.

Rather than assuming brews_ohare is bad character, one can take a different view, that this particular incident should be looked at specifically, and it should be decided whether action has to be taken in this instance. Those seeing the matter in this light seem to think nothing need be done.

My view is that this view is closest to the truth. To support this view, some details of this incident might be helpful. Here are the details:

A paragraph was contributed by Richardbrucebaxter to the philosophical article Free will in this edit. I found the paragraph irrelevant to Free will, and removed it with some talk page discussion. Richardbrucebaxter disagreed, and reinstated the paragraph, where it remains in the article since.

There is nothing unusual about any of this activity, except it came to the attention of Blackburne, who was not involved with Free will, but likes to keep tabs upon my activities. He noticed that the paragraph in question contains the words quantum mechanics and so could be brought to Arbitration Enforcement as a violation of the "speed of light" action forbidding me to make physics-related editing.

Of course, physics was never discussed by myself. I simply found the paragraph turgidly written and not pertinent to free will. Here is Richardbrucebaxter's paragraph for your own judgment in this matter as to its clarity and as to its pertinence to Free will:

"Fundamental debate continues over whether the physical universe is deterministic. Physical models offered at present are both deterministic and indeterministic, and are subject to interpretations of quantum mechanics - which themselves are being constrained by ongoing experimentation.[10] Yet even with physical indeterminism, arguments have been made against the feasibility of incompatibilist free will in that it is difficult to assign Origination (responsibility for "free" indeterministic choices):[11]"

Clearly the paragraph mentions quantum mechanics, albeit vaguely. Clearly I had nothing to do with its content and did not discuss its physics.

So this hearing has a decision to make: how will the sanction be interpreted - in the harshest light requiring action to bring under control what is seen by Administrators as a flagrant and continuing disrespect for his ban by brews_ohare indicative of his bad character? - or in the light of what happened here, in this case?

@Blackburne: The philosophical subject of Determinism is not a physics topic, as you and some others here seem to believe. It is the case that some physical theories can be classified according to one or another of a dozen or so meanings of determinism, but others are not. Application of this descriptor is a technical judgment in philosophy, not to be confused with physics, and having nothing to do with the considerations of this hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this kind of confusion is impossible for Administrators to avoid without spending time they do not have to educate themselves about things like the differences between philosophy and physics, or mathematics and physics, or neuroscience and physics, and on and on. Consequently a "physics ban, broadly conceived" becomes a hunting license for those seeking pretexts, amounting to a near site ban. Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: I do apologize for this flap, and will be more cautious in the future. Brews ohare (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: By the way, I am unable to find the exact wording of the present topic ban. Can someone provide a useful link to this information? Brews ohare (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe this information is found here. A clear statement of its adoption and date of adoption is not provided, but appears to be June 2 or June 3 2012. The wording is:
"Accordingly, the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed."
This topic ban can be revisited June 2013 at the discretion of ArbCom. It was the response to a "clarification request" by Blackburne 00:15, 16 May 2012 regarding my Talk-page activity on Wavelength, incorrectly asserting that I exhibited "a flawed understanding of maths and physics", a position later backed away from as "not a content issue". Brews ohare (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I recognize your point, also raised by My very best wishes, that I tend to become involved in long discussions on Talk pages. Sometimes these are contentious, but in this case of Talk:Free will things have not become heated. Nonetheless, Blackburne has intervened there, even though he is not involved at Free will, a part of his continuing dedication to watching over me for bogus opportunities to bring in Administrative attention.

Long ago I suggested simple restrictions upon my Talk-page activity limiting my discussions. However, ArbCom ignored this useful approach to treating the real problem here, and instead applied a bogus topic ban which they had to make so wide as to encompass every conceivable topic so they can intervene at any time under incorrect premises, namely that it is the topic that matters, not the discussion.

The topic-ban approach was an outgrowth of confusion between my contributions to Speed of light and the support of David Tombe, considered at the time to be a radical, although his support of my position was entirely rational. From that point on, I was labeled as a screwball with odd views on some topics, a view still held by SirFozzie and some others. That despite perfectly sensible articles I created like Envelope (waves), p–n diode, Length measurement, Widlar current source, Step response, Idée fixe (psychology), Field effect (semiconductor), Numeric precision in Microsoft Excel, Low-velocity zone, etc., accompanied by numerous illustrations drawn myself, and completely uncontroversial contributions to many other articles. Some have remained pretty much unchanged and others like Mountain formation have been built upon by others ever since.

I would favor a removal of the topic ban, which is completely archaic at this point, and instead allow me to edit any page but with some clear guidelines about Talk-page engagement. I'd be happy to discuss some proposal in this direction. What do you think about this suggestion? Brews ohare (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads: You have said: "all the evidence is that he removed the section from where it was because of factors to do with the physics - his opinion appears to be that these physical models are not a good fit, something that there appear to be several opinions about." I'd like to clarify that is not my opinion. I've tried to be clear that my removal of this material was completely unrelated to its physics content. My view in removing this material was that it was a digression in explaining Free will, did nothing to clarify Free will, and merely dragged in a rather murky explanation of matters inessential to the topic of free will. This removal was not a physics matter, and neither was Richardbrucebaxter's retention of this material. We simply disagreed about its pertinence to the topic of free will. Brews ohare (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: A question of the role of such "clarification" hearings.

From the comment of Newyorkbrad below, I am led to think that role of a clarification proceeding is to determine whether a ban in force has been violated. If that is found to be so, then the results of the clarification hearing are to be forwarded to Arbitration Enforcement. If that is correct, then the results of the present deliberation should be referred back to the originating 13 December 2012 AE action filed by Blackburne. Is that so?

And to follow up upon this point, Blackburne's present 13 December 2012 AE action was brought on the basis of his previous May 16 2012 clarification action.

That May 16 2012 clarification action found the ban for which Blackburne had requested "clarification", namely Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light, had in fact expired.

Having found there was no ban to clarify, the use of a "clarification" hearing was uncalled for. However, ignoring its illegitimacy, the clarification proceeding carried on, and continued directly to draft and impose an entirely new ban where no ban previously was in force. The May 16 2012 clarification action entertained a series of motions, one of which suggested the present ban that is now being "clarified" here.

No formal transmission of the May 16 2012 clarification action to AE occurred, because there was no ban in effect to report a violation of. Bypassing AE and ArbCom review, the results of that "clarification" were then simply tucked into the expired Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light as a "Motion #7" added to a dead case. Appending the motion to an expired case was done because there was no authority for a clarification hearing to draft a completely new case. Thus it was made to appear as though a case was in force to clarify, although that was pure fiction.

So far as I can see, all this was highly irregular. The preamble at the beginning of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment states that: "Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions" Likewise: "Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case." Neither of these precepts were followed. Of course, WP is not about rules. Nonetheless, a better approach would have been to ask Blackburne to formulate a charge that could be taken to WP:ANI and proceed from there. However, there was no actionable issue formulated that could be taken to WP:ANI, and the "clarification" process was diverted instead.

As a result of this convoluted series of events, the origin of the ban being clarified here is not fundamentally Wikipedia:ARBSL as stated at the outset by Seraphimblade, but actually just another clarification proceeding. It begins to appear that there are serious questions about the present process going back to May 2012.

There is a mess here, and I have no idea how the Arbitrators sort this out. Perhaps some statement of what constitutes due process and the chain of authority could be outlined for future reference? Brews ohare (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Heim: You say, "But an edit like this one that explicitly mentions principles from physics does seem to fall under it." Your remark gets to the point of this clarification: What is the intention of the ban anyway? There are many possible answers, and sorting through them would achieve the Arbitrators' goal of "clarification". Brews ohare (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@CountIblis: As SilkTork, My very best wishes, and myself have indicated above, some modification of the rules governing my behavior is desirable, both because the present vagueness of the ban is too easily abused as a hunting license by those like Blackburne, and because it severely limits my ability to contribute to WP in areas where I could be most helpful. Whether Arbitrators are more open to such changes today than in the past is unclear. When that discussion takes place, if it ever does, mentoring could be examined. Personally, a much simpler approach would be something along these lines: "Brews_ohare is advised to explain on Talk pages that his participation in discussion can exceed the patience of some editors. If this should arise, a majority vote by those involved to the effect that Brews_ohare should desist is taken to be sufficient warning to Brews_ohare that continuation of that discussion point is considered tendentious editing that can be taken to WP:AE for sanction as follows: etc.." Brews ohare (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

When the Arbitrators consider the intent of the present ban, they might ponder whether the objective of the present very broad and vague ban is exactly that, to limit prolonged discussion on Talk pages. It is not a topic issue, and that is why the topic ban is framed so vaguely that it refers to almost anything that I might participate in. Therefore, the topic ban should be dropped and a guideline for Talk-page activity adopted in its place. Brews ohare (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Arbitrators: So far, only SilkTork has responded to any of the discussion here from other editors, or any of the points I have raised above. I do hope that the early observations by the Arbitrators expressed so far might be re-examined in the light of what has happened in this hearing, and that they will not feel their initial opinions have locked them into positions they cannot modify. Brews ohare (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Coren

I still think that by itself, the edit is so tenuously related to physics that it should not be construed to fall under the topic ban clearly enough for a sanction. That said, if the related behaviour on the talk page falls within the old problem patterns (something which I have no opinion on), then there is cause for concern. — Coren (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

I have explained my views in the AE thread, and have nothing more to add at this time. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by JohnBlackburne

Thank you to Seraphimblade for bringing this, it seems from the enforcement request that 'broadly intepreted' is perhaps not as precise as it could be, as there seems to be some disagreement over its interpretation. I think Seraphimblade has stated this very well so don't have anything to add to that.

I would also note that this is a very narrow question as the number of pages that are not physics pages that refer to it must be very small. Whole subject areas will have nothing to do with it and even in philosophy there are very few intersections. But the relationship between free will and physics is clear, with free will being closely related to determinism which is also a fundamental question in quantum mechanics. This does mean though that there is no danger that such a broad interpretation of 'broadly interpreted' makes it effectively a site ban, as it affects the physics content of very few pages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Comment by Johnuniq

While I have scanned several pages related to WP:ARBSL in the past, and have occasionally commented regarding Brews ohare's editing and talk page conduct, I am not familiar with the precise nature of the ARBSL sanction (I've read the words, but not the background). For those who are familiar with the history, wouldn't NOT BUREAUCRACY resolve the current request by considering whether the current activity is of the same nature as that which ARBSL was intended to prevent? If it is, an in-spirit violation would have occurred—that would warrant a very strong final warning, although perhaps not a sanction. I just scanned Talk:Free will and it is obvious that some kind of relief is required. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Heim

I'm one of the three administrators Seraphimblade alludes to as believing that these edits were indeed a violation of the topic ban. My rationale: Yes, of course it's possible to bend everything to fall under a physics topic ban. For example, I wouldn't support blocking over an edit concerning the motorcade in which Kennedy was travelling when he was assassinated because cars moving falls under the laws of physics. Even "broadly construed" doesn't go that far, in my opinion. But as edit like this one that explicitly mentions principles from physics does seem to me to fall under it. So I guess my understanding, at least, is that any edit that concerns actual principles from physics is out of bounds. Of course, I will defer to what the committee agrees on in terms of how it should be enforced. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by My very best wishes

I think Brews made good faith effort to edit something unrelated to Physics, such as "Free will". But his problem is not related to Physics, but rather to his tendency to continue very long discussion on article talk pages, even when two or three people happened to disagree with him, instead of simply dropping the issue. If he could stop doing this, he would be able to edit just fine anywhere, and especially in the area of Physics and Engineering where he is an expert. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with comment by NE Ent (just below). First of all, this is not a page about Physics, hence there is no violation. Second, I do not see any evidence of disruption by Brews at talk page of Free will. I have seen much longer discussions, and no one was blocked like here. Maybe that's because there is nothing wrong with long discussions? My very best wishes (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I did not check this Free will discussion in all detail (tl;dr), but I saw a number of previous discussions with Brews about physics (e.g. just before his topic ban) and must tell: he always discuss in a good faith, his suggestions to improve articles are reasonable, and he has no strong biases. This is all very different from some discussions in more contentious subject areas where some participants may discuss to stonewall, to discredit their content "opponents", to discredit sources they do not like, or even to force their "opponents" to loose their cool and then report them to AE. If that happens, one should run away from such discussions where some participants make literally thousands comments because of their POV, COI or whatever. However, Brews obviously do not do anything of this nature. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by NE Ent

Please review Talk:Free will slowly and in detail. There's no evidence of disruption and no personal attacks, rather robust but polite discussion among 2 to 3 editors trying to come to consensus. Yes Brews ohare has pretty horrible wiki-political instincts and could've / should've made his rhetorical points without using forbidden words. Yes, he has a tendency towards long windedness that's not doing him any favors.

And yes, the current wording of the ban is weak: the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed. (emphasis mine). If ya'll want a wiki-wide topic ban, the original wording from 2009 topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed is much clearer on scope. NE Ent 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Boodlepounce

Boodlepounce is puzzled. The sanctions states the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed Boodlepounce does not see why this needs clarification. It seems clear to Boodlepounce that this is a ban from certain pages; that the ban extends to all spaces not just article space; that the pages are defined by being about physics and physics-related mathematics; and that the construction of the the defninition of physics and physics-related mathematics is to be broad. If the Committee had intended a topic-ban on content about physics, they could and would have said so -- Boodlepounce assumes that the Committee meant what it said and said what it meant. Boodlepounce has commented on the present request for sanctions in the appropriate location.

Boodlepounce is equally unpersuaded of the need for amendment. The conduct complained of seems well within the scope of normal editing behaviour and if not Boodlepounce sees no evidence here that other mechanisms for dispute resolution have been tried. Boodlepounce suggests that there is no need for the Committee to consider this request further. Boodlepounce (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Count Iblis

I ask ArbCom to pass a motion to modify the topic ban into a mentoring set-up where Brews can edit any page after approval by a mentor. Brews has made contributions within the physics and math topic areas that are valued where the collaboration was without problems. In fact, he is sometimes asked to collaborate but then has to decline due to his topic ban. With this mentoring set-up, it's less likely for Brews to get into the problems. E.g. if Brews wants to spend all day on editing the various wiki-pages that give the explicit expressions for the acceleration in different coordinate systems including the derivations, most likely there would be no problems. In fact, by spending his energy this way, it's not used in fruitless talk page debates. As things stand now, the latter is "legal" as long as the talk page isn't that of a physics related page, while the former is illegal as it would violate his topic ban.

So, just do away with this topic ban and replace it by the mentoring set up that precisely addresses the problem. Count Iblis (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Clerks, I think this clarification can be closed. Risker (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • During the Speed of light case, three years ago, Brews ohare was found to have engaged in tendentious debates. When looking at the talkpage history of Free will, I notice that Brews ohare has dominated discussion in the past four months. I also note that this edit involves removing mention of physical models such as quantum physics, which is at least touching on the borders of the topic bans, but when challenged Brews ohare defends his actions, even though it has become a contentious issue. Given that Brews ohare's editing of Free will was contentious and tendentious and that he has been previously warned about his behaviour, I am concerned that he has not apologised and walked away from this issue. None of us are indispensable to any article, and when reasonable concerns are raised about our involvement in an article, it is perhaps wiser to either step back and edit elsewhere (there are over four million articles to edit) or ask for an independent third party to get involved.
I'll wait for further comments to see if sanctions and/or adjustments to the topic ban are appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
@Brews ohare - I had wondered if some talkpage restriction would be appropriate. I did ponder it last time the Committee discussed your behaviour. I have briefly looked at the content of Free will to see the value of your contributions to main space, but haven't made any kind of analyses - it is a big article on a complex topic and would require an investment of time that I'm not sure I'm willing to make. The Committee has been criticised a number of times this year for wandering from the exact point of a clarification request, so this may not be the time and place to consider such a restriction nor the lifting of your ban. This request is to establish if you have violated your topic ban, and if the wording of your ban needs adjusting. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think Johnuniq makes a good point here. Had Brews removed a joke about quantum uncertainty from the article on English muffins - ie where no-one could reasonably argue that it had a place - then that might have been unproblematic. However, all the evidence is that he removed the section from where it was because of factors to do with the physics - his opinion appears to be that these physical models are not a good fit, something that there appear to be several opinions about. As such I would have said that it goes over the border into the topic ban, particularly given the tendentious behaviour as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed that this is a violation of the topic ban. Considering Brews ohare's history, the decision previously was to restrict him from these topics in the broadest sense. We are seeing why now. SirFozzie (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This edit involved article content on a physics-related topic and therefore falls within the topic-ban. The scope of restrictions and bans needs to be construed reasonably, but I agree with the others that the material that Brews ohare removed here was at least arguably relevant to the article it was contained in, and therefore he should not have removed it. (I would not have been as concerned if Brews ohare had merely questioned on the article talkpage whether the material belonged there—although a separate issue is that no one editor should monopolize a talkpage to the extent of making it useless for everyone else, compare Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question). The situation is clear enough that I do not see the need for a formal clarification or amendment of our decision. If the AE administrators believe Brews ohare's violation of the ArbCom remedy is established, he may be blocked in accordance with that decision. If the AE administrators believe that Brews ohare may have been acting in the good-faith belief that his edit was proper, and he now commits not to do the same thing again, then perhaps only a final warning for the infraction should be given and logged; that is a decision for AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
    • To Seraphimblade: I have no issue with clarification having been requested. My point was simply that the arbitrators' comments here should give sufficient clarification, as opposed to a formal motion to clarify or amend being made and voted upon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I see the AE report as a pretty much unambigious violation of the topic ban. Courcelles 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Broadly per Brad,  Roger Davies talk 18:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have nothing particular to add to what others have said before, which seems to be sufficient clarification to me. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur broadly with Newyorkbrad. While the inherent subject of the page is not physics-related, Brews ohare's edit to the page attempted to make it physics related. I agree this is a violation of the ban. Risker (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 (December 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by
Rainer P.
Case affected
Prem Rawat 2
Remedy to which an amendment is requested
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Information about amendment request
  • Request : Rainer P. unbanned.

Statement by Rainer P.

  • I have been indefinitely topic-banned by The Blade of the Northern Lights, for “persistant battleground behaviour” but he provides no evidence or diffs to support that charge.
  • I have never engaged in “battleground behavior”. I regard my influence there as neutral, moderate and conciliatory. About the only comment about me notes “Rainer's attempt to pull this discussion back on track seems a move in a positive direction”.[93]
  • I have edited Prem Rawat articles less than 10 times in three years. I have made edits only with full consent from all after previous discussion, like my last edit to the article on October 19th.[94]
  • Most of my edits have been to the Talk Page because I have extensive knowledge of the subject and want to help the article editors. I have never been uncivil despite being frequently provoked.
  • I have never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing.
  • I have never been part of an Arbitration action. And so, as per Discretionary Sanctions, I should have received a warning before banning.[95][96]
  • I have never been banned or blocked or otherwise been subject to disciplinary actions.
  • I have looked at all my edits and I cannot see what I have done wrong.

Statement by Rumiton

Thanks for inviting me to comment. I don't understand the reason for Blade's implementation of these bans so I will wait to hear from him before commenting further. Rumiton (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, Blade has made a statement. For the record, I am not a SPA. In 5 years, I have made 9316 Wikipedia edits to 1138 pages, including helping develop several high-profile articles to FA status (see my Talk Page.)

I have now read Blade's comments 4 times, but I still find them problematic. He says: "What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat." This may be true, but is it necessarily a bad thing? If an article starts off by being unduly weighted against a subject; if it is packed with long-ago trivia and gossip from lesser sources and ignores or minimises the real recent achievements that sources tell us a subject has made, is restoring a balance not what we are supposed to do? OTOH, if someone believes that this is not the case, should they not vigorously present their argument on the talk page?

He then says, "Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two." (Momento and me.) Is this also a bad thing? "Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49." Yes, that's true, he did.

"Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article." I don't want to add lese-majesty to whatever may be my other crimes, but IMO Jimbo's editing was hardly directed at "removing bias" when he added the word "cult" prominently to the lead. The word now appears twice three times in the first paragraph, without even the specific in-line attribution which is recommended in the Style Manual.

It seems to me that Blade has overstepped the line in deciding for himself what is undue weight, and especially in banning Rainer P. who is one of the mildest and most conciliatory editors I have worked with. Rumiton (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

I have a few impressions of the recent dynamics of this article discussion page and editing that includes Blade of the Northern Lights recent blocks. I had very little knowledge of Prem Rawat and of the editors who edit on this article until a few months ago with one exception, a now banned editor. I came to the page because of a comment I saw on Jimbo's talk page which seemed to me to be very uncivil.

Clearly discussion and editing on this page is highly contentious. However, while editors had strong opinions about how policy applied to content and sources, I did not see anything unreasonable in the issues raised. it seemed to me that some editors where intent on protecting past edits and content, while other editors were interested in contesting some content. I don't see anything wrong with any of this. Discussion pages are for discussion. This is contentious and a BLP so there's going to be lots of differing opinion. Once an uninvolved editor (olive) had come onto the page and Blade had made a few warning remarks in reference to civility, I felt things on the page settled down and editors were making a real effort to work collaboratively. I think that general process was ongoing and working. Issues were being discussed and then acted upon and there was little edit warring. The only inappropriate aspect of the process was periodic incivility which tended to degrade the process. I didn't see battleground behaviour in Memento, Rumiton or Rainer. Nor did the three of them always agree with each other. That isn't to say they didn't have strong opinions and were willing to express them. Rainer was always mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory in his positions. (I'm not taking credit for any quieting down on the page. I suspect any outside person requesting quiet above the din could change the long standing dynamic on that page)

It was after the page had quieted down and following a comment on Jimbo's talk page, and when progress was being made in terms of talk page dynamics that Blade sanctioned 4 editors silmultaneoulsy with out diffs to support the sanctions. Blade's ban didn't appear to follow the normal WP process by pointing to diffs of threads showing problematic behavior so I think posting diffs especially within context of the discussion as a whole would be a good next step for the banning admin to take.

In theory, sanctions in WP are meant to improve behavior. One can't improve if one doesn't know specifically what one has done wrong.(olive (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

  • @Sir Fozzie: Editors have been sanctioned already. I may not have understood your statement.
  • My points, and I may have not articulated them very well is that It would be helpful if diffs indicating sanctionable behaviour for each editor be shown rather than a simultaneous editor sanction with no diffs.
  • @ Commenting Arbs: My first reading of the article when I came to it a few months ago was that it contained, as some contentious articles do, subtle tiny points which together serve to colour the article as a whole. This is an insidious form of editing dangerous for an encyclopedia especially on a BLP article. As is now, the article reads in a pretty neutral way excluding the second sentence of the lead which serves to describe another human being in only one way. Not good and not neutral. My experience with the editors on this page was that there was a genuine effort to improve their editing. The sanction came as a shock, especially the sanction of Rainer, in light of the improvements I saw in editing behaviour. Perhaps the difference with someone coming in, who is aware of the history and contentious nature of the article in general, but has no view of the editors, nor preconceptions about the topic area is that I didn't know or care what Rawat is in a personal way, nor do I care about editor motive. I'm looking at the present situation. I as a reader now, as the article is, sense that Rawat is controversial, has detractors and supporters, and I have a sense of what his tenets are. I no longer feel I am being manipulated to see Rawat in any particular way. The slant when I came in was pejorative. The Nixon article is probably a good example of a neutral article that could have easily been slanted in a pejorative way. This means to me process on the article is starting to work. I have left the article because support of edits was seen as support of editors which left me open for a a lot of abusive comments. Not what I have time for.(olive (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC))

Statement by EdJohnston

In response to Roger Davies, if you want to switch the remedies over to discretionary sanctions, and want to find a way to deal with the existing bans, you could decide that any existing bans placed under the old remedies are vacated, but are replaced by new bans of the same duration subject to arbitration enforcement appeal. Once you had made that change, you could deal with Rainer P.'s appeal by having a clerk copy it over to WP:Arbitration enforcement. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Momento

Where is the evidence of Rainer's "persistent battleground behaviour"? I can't see it. Little Olive Oil and Silk Tork can't see it. BOTNL can't provide a single diff. And no one has raised it on Rainer's talk page or Prem Rawat talk. The only person accused of "battleground behaviour" on the Prem Rawat articles this year is PatW. Four separate editors have found it necessary to go to PatW's talk page and ask him to modify his behaviour to no avail. [97][98][99][100] And that doesn't include numerous comments on Prem Rawat talk. As for BOTNL's observation that "it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing", I think this comment from an independent editor who wanted to contribute sums it up nicely - "I came to this page to see if the allegations being made about Memento's editing were true, but what strikes me as more egregious are the constant personal attacks by PatW and Surdas. Because of the hostility and unconstructive comments by those two, I'm unwilling to get involved at this point. PatW and Surdas, if you will work on getting your behavior back in line with WP's policies, I think more page watchers, such as myself, might be willing to get involved in the content discussion".[101] Rainer may be an SPA but he is, as WP:SPA notes "a well-intentioned editor with a niche interest" and "the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject". Rainer's appeal should have been over in five minutes, he has done nothing wrong and "the project" is diminished when "mild mannered, polite, and conciliatory" editors are hounded and sanctioned for their personal beliefs.Momento (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Despite Silk Tork's optimism I think it is highly unlikely that, despite that fact the Rainer has done nothing wrong, he will get "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at AE" agreeing with that. We've already seen him sanctioned without a shred of evidence. And two Abitrators have already made it clear that simply being an SPA is cause for concern.Momento (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify. BOTNL says that "he had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas". In fact BOTNL made more than one hundred edits from Hurricane Sandy until he decided to ban me on November 15th, less than 24 hours after PatW wrote on Jimbo's page. He now characterises my edits between November 10 and 15 as giving "the article a very pro-Rawat slant". Have any of you looked at these edits? Here's a synopsis.[102] And note that 17 editors were editing the article in the preceding month and not one of them objected to my proposals or edits. From October 1st to the time of my banning 20 different editors made 72 edits to the Prem Rawat article "hardly an article being stifled" as claimed by BOTNL. So who is turning Prem Rawat into a "battleground"? The editor BOTNL avoids discussing. An editor whose talk page has been visited 18 times by editors asking him to stop his "battleground" behaviour.[103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120] Not to mention the countless times he has been asked to stop on the PR talk page. [121] And yet BOTNL did nothing until he banned Rainer.Momento (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement from The Blade of the Northern Lights

Let me begin by saying I also think a blanket lifting here would be a bad idea; as noted below by Risker, there's something else at work with PatW's situation, and in any event these sorts of issues are normally considered on a case-by-case basis. In early April of this year, an ANI thread brought my attention to the Prem Rawat topic area; since that time, I have been watching over the Prem Rawat article and a few associated articles. From April to August, Rumiton was under an indefinite topic ban, but I was monitoring the other users linked above, and when I lifted his ban I continued to watch him. What I could see was a pattern of editing that was slowly but surely slanting the article away from criticisms of Rawat. Although Momento, Rumiton, and PatW (PatW being the sole voice of opposition) were clearly the most active of the three, Rainer P. came by with some frequency to support the first two; the percentage of edits these editors had to Prem Rawat and the talkpage referred to by Roger Davies below also caught my eye. With the exception of a couple of outbursts from PatW, it's not something that can easily be packaged in diffs, but watching it happen it was becoming very clear what was going on. User:Steven Zhang had come in to mediate in August, and he was seeing exactly the same patterns I was. By mid-October, it was becoming obvious the article was being stifled by the incessant fighting and tendentious editing. Although Rainer P. didn't edit the article a lot, he made a large number of comments now located at Talk:Prem Rawat/Archive 49 (which for some reason isn't linked in the archive box at Talk:Prem Rawat; someone who knows how such things work may want to fix that seems this has been fixed; many thanks to Hahc21).

As was stated in the messages I gave them each, I had initially intended to institute the topic bans in late October, but first Hurricane Sandy and then a nasty snowstorm had other ideas, and I didn't think it'd be fair of me to topic ban people and disappear for several days; in those couple weeks, I saw a series of edits between November 10 and November 15 from Momento and Rumiton. These edits clearly gave the article a very pro-Rawat slant, and the tone on the talkpage made it readily obvious that was the intent. It was to the point where another editor noted on the talkpage how obvious it was, and even Jimbo stated his intent to get involved in trying to remove the bias from the article (something he later did); this made it even more obvious to me the continued presence of these users would be detrimental. I knew none of them would want to raise an AE thread because it would almost certainly result in the filer[s] being banned as well, and knowing the article was under article probation I decided to unilaterally do it myself.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion on whether or not to remove the article probation sanction and replace it with standard DS; though the current article probation makes it easier for one administrator to manage major problems without requiring 15 threads in 10 places, I also understand not wanting to give administrators too much power over articles. As to the lifting of the topic bans, I think allowing SPAs who clearly have some sort of agenda back into the article will lead to exactly the same problems there were before. If you're going to replace article probation with standard DS, I'd support EdJohnston's suggestion above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Roger Davies; thanks for cleaning up the logs. It makes the job of AE admins a lot easier if we're certain we're logging things in the right place.
@Newyorkbrad; the case of Rainer P. is certainly a bit murkier than the others, but here's my take on it. Two users, Momento and Rumiton, were by far the most vocal pushing a particular POV; although Rainer P. didn't himself initiate many proposals on the talkpage, I saw that he was showing up to support the other two with an extremely high level of frequency. As mentioned above, I also noticed the extremely high percentage of edits to both the article and talkpage. When considering what to do, I thought given his history that if I were to only ban Momento and Rumiton, Rainer P. would almost certainly pick up right where they left off; given this would defeat the purpose of stopping users from stifling the article, I decided to ban him as well. It's not unlike some AE cases where upon looking at a situation, you not only see a problem with the subject of the thread but with someone else not originally mentioned. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@Momento; just as I didn't want to hand out a topic ban and then disappear for several days, I also didn't want to come out of nowhere after being almost completely gone for almost a week and do something this drastic. Sandy hit my area Monday, October 29; I didn't get my internet back until the 3rd of November, Sunday afternoon. The very next day, I heard of the snowstorm, and while it ended up not knocking my power out it debilitated several towns immediately around mine and the threat of it lingered until about 4 or 5 days afterwards. I also have some other interests on Wikipedia as well, so it wasn't really the first thing I thought to do once I knew I was in the clear. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement from {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've looked back at the contributions of Rainer P. (which are mainly to the talkpage of Prem Rawat) and I cannot find any problematic edits. I think it would help if The Blade of the Northern Lights could identify the problem areas for us. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
And would this be better placed at AE? SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Support replacing the 2008 remedy with Standard Discretionary Sanctions, and then moving this individual's appeal to AE where the other users may also make an appeal if they wish. That a user has most of their edits in one location is not in itself a reason for a topic ban (even if the location is controversial) - it is the nature of the edits that matter (as discussed in Wikipedia:Single-purpose account), and I expect that during the individual appeals at AE it will be the nature of the edits of each user that will be examined rather than the amount. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had a look at this too, but a slightly different perspective. The authority for the sanctions comes from the 2008 Prem Rawat Article Probation remedy. The 2008 remedy does not require prior warnings, and has no appeal provisions. Whatever else happens, we probably need to consider whether the 2008 remedy needs to be modernised by replacing it with Standard Discretionary Sanctions. If we do go down that road, we could consider replacing the current indefinite topic bans with warnings to bring enforcement into line with current provisions, though probably not for all four editors involved. In any event, I'd like very much to hear from Blade of the Northern Lights before this amendment request gets much older. Parhaps one of the clerks would be good enough to notify User:The Blade of the Northern Lights as well as the other topic-banned editors, User:Momento, User:Rumiton and User:PatW. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies talk 14:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Just looking at the contribution histories, 71% of Momento's edits are either to Prem Rawat or its talk page; 37% of Rumiton's; 86% of Rainer P.'s; and 77% of PatW's. Between them, they've added 11,800 edits to these pages.  Roger Davies talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • @EdJohnston. That's a good idea. I'll think on the other mechanics/implications,  Roger Davies talk 18:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd be fine with bringing the remedy into the modern DS framework, however, a blanket lifting of the sanctions would be a bad idea. This appeal, however, we need to hear from Blade before proceeding further. (A motion on the underlying remedy would be in order before that, though) Courcelles 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Would be interested in bringing this into line with the current discretionary sanctions framework. I will note that I recently blocked PatW indefinitely for an attempt to out a user in relation to this topic. I am quite concerned about the fact that we seem to be dealing with several editors whose sole contribution to the project is in the Prem Rawat topic area, and I am unconvinced that any steps that permit these accounts to continue to monopolize the topic area is beneficial to the project. Risker (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that we need to bring this case in line with "modern" discretionary sanctions, but I don't think a blanket lifting of sanctions is workable, nor desirable. I share Risker's concerns that there are a number of SPA's who are very close to the edge of a sanction here. SirFozzie (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I completely understand why The Blade of the Northern Lights perceived problems in the editing of Prem Rawat, but if Rainer P. is correct that he "had never been warned or criticised in over three years of editing," then I can understand his perspective that immediately escalating to an indefinite topic-ban might be a bit drastic. I'd welcome The Blade of the Northern Lights' thoughts on that aspect. I also agree with the suggestion of moving to a discretionary sanctions regime on Prem Rawat and related articles, and allowing editors who are currently the subject of sanctions based on the 2008 decision (including Rainer P.) to request reconsideration of their status on AE. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Motions

Motion: Replacement of "Article Probation" with "Standard Discretionary sanctions"

By motion, the committee resolves that:
  1. Standard Discretionary sanctions are authorised with immediate effect for all pages relating to Prem Rawat, broadly construed; this supersedes the existing Article Probation remedy.
  2. Any current non-expired Article Probation sanctions are hereby vacated and replaced with standard Discretionary Sanctions in the same terms and durations as the vacated sanctions. If appropriate, these may be appealed at Arbitration Enforcement.
  3. The Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions at the Prem Rawat 2 case page is to be merged into the original Prem Rawat log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat#Logs of blocks, bans, and restrictions, which is to be used for all future recording of warnings and sanctions.

Enacted - Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Support
  1. There appears to be consensus for this in the discussion above. As a bit of gold-plating, I have consolidated the logs for RfAr:PR and RfAr:PR2 as they are currently separated. I should add that this motion is purely an administrative action and is in no way critical of User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Please tweak if needed.  Roger Davies talk 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  2. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  3. Kirill [talk] 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  4. Appropriate tidying up - including the merging of the logs. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  5. Risker (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  6. This makes good sense as an amendment to the two Prem Rawat decisions. If it passes, could a Clerk please answer any questions Rainer P (or anyone else) might have about the procedures, as I expect that the distinction between an appeal to ArbCom and an appeal to Arbitration Enforcement may be opaque to editors unfamiliar with the arbitration pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  7. Good housekeeping. Courcelles 17:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  8. SirFozzie (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  10. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. Upon implementation of this motion, Rainer's appeal should be submitted in the usual way to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. AGK [•] 23:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
  • When this motion is enacted. would the clerks please notify all the users currently under the old sanctions to let them know of the change, given this creates a route of appeal that did not exist prior? Thanks. Courcelles 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The only users under current sanctions are those here.  Roger Davies talk 07:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: Claritas' request for a clean start (December 2012)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Claritas § at 07:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Claritas

I have been refused a clean start by the Arbitration Committee, although I am under no active editing restrictions or Arbitration sanctions.

The justification for this refusal given by Coren is that my unblock was under certain conditions. This is not the case - there are no restrictions logged against me at the page on editing restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talk • contribs)


  • Just to clarify, I would accept an indefinite ban on XfD participation on a new account. I will not edit under an account which can be directly linked to this account by the average user, because too many people dislike me for me to have a pleasant working environment. Claritas § 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • SilkTork is right that I am not under any restriction. I offered a topic ban when I was unbanned, but there was no need for it. I fail to see how my XfD activity is contentious (quite a lot of them get closed as delete, you know). It has not been brought up on any of the drama boards. I was banned for block evasion, and blocked because I hoaxed.
    • My behaviour may seem irrational, but I cannot edit productively with this account because of the way I used it before and the fact that I feel my reputation is dirt. I plead with you to understand that a clean start would be in everyone's interests. It would be in your interests because I wouldn't be causing AC level fuss, and it would be in my interests because I'd get more done and would feel comfortable editing Wikipedia. --Claritas § 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


  • I will not seek a clean start. I think I agree with SilkTork's reasoning, in that the community is best posed to monitor my activity, not the arbitration committee. I will change my username instead, and avoid AfD. Sorry for causing so much fuss. Claritas § 10:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

  • I've been very loosely in a mentorship position with Claritas. I've been in touch with Claritas off-wiki with regards to his latest dustup at AfD which has prompted the decision to change user names. Claritas feels he is being drawn in to previously existing controversies based on his user name alone and wants the chance to contribute to the encyclopedia in peace. I advised him that this seemed like a good idea and that he should steer clear of nominating anything further to AfD regardless of whether or not he made a user name change. He is not approaching the use of a new name dishonestly, he earnestly wants to terminate the first name and the associated baggage with it so that he can edit with the second in peace. My understanding is that this is a permitted reason for a name change and I'm at a loss as to why he was instantly blocked for attempting to make good faith edits under an alternative name. I urge the new committee to reconsider this matter, even if the solution includes a topic ban of the new account from AfD and absolute termination of the first. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
In short: the committee needs to Assume Good Faith here. This is not an attempt to sock around a block, it's a restart where one is needed... Carrite (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Volunteer Marek. My understanding was Claritas was primarily interested in a simple name change, rather than a formal clean start — I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. Since he previously socked around a block, even this was seen in the worst possible light. I hope he's allowed to lose the old name and hope he learns to let the cruft lie and to concentrate on positive improvements. I hope also that the new Arb Com not only makes this possible, but puts teeth behind it by banning AfD nominations, no matter the user name. The problem here isn't dishonest socking around a ban, it's Claritas again stirring up a bee's nest by attempting to bring crufty in-universe material to AfD. (Just let that shit sit, my friend, it's not worth caring about...) Carrite (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • @Hahc21. You've got it. Add a proviso that the clean start account is to be the only account and have Claritas affirm that he will not sock and you're home. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • General comment: Claritas's AfD nominations were not "bad" ones — far less controversial than those regularly hauled to AfD by The Usual Deletionist Suspects. "Buckets of in-universe fan cruft from sci-fi," I guess we could characterize the pieces he challenged that way. Probably 75% of his nominations would end as Deletes, I'm guessing. So he has not been abusive of the process, per se. The problem is that there is a contingent of fanboy types that want to take him out for challenging the notability of their treasured articles... The key here is to call it a draw: Claritas needs to concentrate on making positive contributions to the Serious Encyclopedia and to leave the Compendium of Popular Culture alone. It's hard for him, but that's what needs to happen. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

How about just a username change, rather than clean start? That way the new name will link to the old username and anyone who really cares should be able to find it, but there won't be any automatic stigma attached to the username.

And I can't believe that stupid Asmodeus D&D article was actually kept. Tells you something about the project's priorities.Volunteer Marek 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Since Claritas would be under the restriction to steer clear of XfD, per WP:CLEANSTART or risk having the new account linked with the old, it would seem that disallowing a clean start achieves nothing.

It should be noted, of course, that it is not in ArbCom's purview to allow or disallow a clean start. "You are not required to notify anyone of your clean start." and "no one can grant permission for a clean start."

I think the committee should avoid ruling on this matter, and should rescind any previous ruling. Should Claritas wish to clarify whether the wording of the policy includes unblock restrictions, they may ask anyone they wish for advice, but it would have no binding authority, it seems to me, unless it was a question asked of the community.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

To NewYorkBrad, I would have relatively little trouble with the policy stating that users under sanction were required to have Arbcom approval to restart (BASC might be a better group), however I cannot see where it does say that. It even supports my suggestion "you can ask a member of the Arbitration committee or the functionaries team for advice."
Secondly, on being "burned" I don't see this as a big problem. A user is problematic, does a restart and is problematic again. Unless this is serial we deal with the problematic user, very likely linking them with the original account.
Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

Comment by Mathsci

A significant proportion of Claritas' contributions since his unblock at the beginning of November have been to XfDs, contrary to the conditions to which he agreed. Even now his current username does not prevent him from moving his editing activities away from XfDs. Mathsci (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by BOZ

When a particularly egregious case of a history of misbehavior occurs within the community, it is in the community's best interest to be able to keep an eye on that user. I noticed Claritas at AFD a few years ago, and while this account seemed to be pretty aggressive on fictional element articles, I suppose this is nothing unique. Then before long, it seemed like... gee... there were a lot more accounts with the same approach, and... on the same types of articles. Hmm, but I guess I did not think much of that until I found out that, oh, these were actually the same person, and some of these accounts were being used to change the course of the same AFDs, while others were being used to circumvent blocks once the earlier socks were found out. Whew. So then Claritas came out with this admission that the user was specifically doing this to mess with people and/or prove some kind of point. Then, after the ban was in effect, the user came back more than once, after short periods of time, to claim they had a change of heart and weren't going to misbehave anymore. I'm sure if I wanted to take the time to go back and re-read all the history, I cound find even more unsavory stuff.

So, needless to say, I was very uneasy when the user came back in October to say they had put their past behind them. The standard offer was put up to a community vote on whether to allow Claritas back, and consensus said we would give the user another shot (but not without reservations). I decided not to oppose, because despite my concerns, if this user was sincere, I did not want to assume bad faith. At first things were pretty quiet, with the user being unblocked at the beginning of November, but less than two weeks later, and after assuring us that Claritas was here to work on article building (which, as far as I can tell, has yet to happen - at all), AFD participation resumed, and two weeks after that, AFD nominations resumed in earnest, with AFD being the sole form of pariticpation for this user since mid-December as far as I can tell. If Claritas actually had any intention of putting the community at ease by avoiding this account's number one problem area and doing actual work on articles, then this was very quickly forgotten.

This user strikes me as being very short on patience, with some deficiency in maturity and civility as well. These are not sufficient reasons alone to ban a user, but given this user's history I think the community has a right be concerned with their participation. It would be doing the community a disservice to have Claritas assume a new name that we would be unaware of, especially if they want to continue with the same sort of activity that they have since the unban. If Claritas sincerely wants a clean start, then let's call this a "false start"; get on with article building and get away from XfD, and I can guarantee your past will be quickly forgotten. BOZ (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Hahc21

A solution may be the next:

Claritas (talk · contribs) is offered a clean start under a new username which will be disclosed only to the Arbitration Committee. Claritas is hereby limited to edit only under the new account, and if he wishes to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the new account is banned from XfD for a period not less than a year; violation of the ban will result in an indefinite block; the connection with the Claritas account shall be given as proof to support such block, which can only be performed by a sitting arbitrator as a discretionary measure.

Just some thoughts, though. — ΛΧΣ21 06:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Carrite: I have made some tweaks; although, of course, it's in the committee's hands the final resolution of the situation. — ΛΧΣ21 20:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
@AQFK: When he requested to be unbaned, he was recommended to stay away from XfDs, not banned from XfD. So, he did not violate any condition. As Claritas himself stated, he was unbaned under no restrictions. — ΛΧΣ21 20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

If Claritas was allowed to resume editing on the basis that they would stay away from AfD discussions, and they immediately violated that condition, why is Claritas not blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, Claritas should be blocked for violating their condition to stay away from AfDs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Themfromspace

The request to change name should be denied. Due to Claritas' history with socking, this should be obvious. When we agreed to let him back in, we gave him a second chance. But we didn't give him carte blanche to evade scrutiny.

Ideally, the discussion should stop here, but some editors (mostly ideological opponents) are saying that Claritas has to keep away from XfD. Claritas was unblocked without any special conditions or prohibitions, just an encouragement to mentor with Carrite. The statement he made saying he could stay away from XfDs was never incorporated into his unblock provision. There were no special unblock conditions for him to violate, nor does it appear that editors at the unblock discussion expected him to return with an XfD prohibition.

Finally, arbitrator Jclemens absolutely needs to recuse himself from this discussion and keep his comments away from the arbitrators' discussion section. He is not neutral and his comments stem from an ideological disagreement rather than an objective look at the situation. Proving this point, he has been disruptive in XfDs created by Claritas, using ad-hominem smear attacks directed at him [122] [123] [124]. ThemFromSpace 00:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Claritas, considering your history, there was no way a CLEANSTART was going to be granted. Considering your profane email to the Committee after being told your cleanstart wasn't going to be allowed, do you honestly believe that asking publicly will have any different result? SirFozzie (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Claritas, you've been unblocked under the proviso that your behaviour would not return to that which led to your ban (including a great deal of socking); this self-evidently requires the community to be able to examine your behaviour and that you do not switch to an undisclosed account.

    In particular, you've swiftly ended up in the same trouble areas that led to your initial difficulties; switching accounts at that point (and so close after your unban) cannot be viewed as anything but attempting to evade scrutiny. — Coren (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

    • Carrite, the baggage Claritas carries isn't with the name of the account, but his behaviour around XfD – which he was quick to return to despite having been unbanned on the promise of concentrating on writing rather than engaging there. It's not a question of assuming good faith on Claritas's part but that the community needs to be able to evaluate whether its trust to allow him to return was well-placed; and that can't be done if he switches accounts.

      I'd be entirely willing to revisit the idea of allowing a clean start after a couple of months of good behaviour, but not this soon and not on the heels of his having gotten into a spat around XfD again. — Coren (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Claritas, your hands are so far from clean in this matter that I think the community should actively revisit the decision to unblock you, which was based on statements you made which are manifestly not true. You promised to "produce quality content in the future" and you volunteered that you were "happy to have an indefinite self or community imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write." when in fact your recent contributions list is filled with fictional elements AfD participation, rather than content creation. In fact you renominated an article that you'd previously nominated as a sockpuppet My term on the committee is ending, so I will not need to formally recuse on any vote relating to this matter, but given that I and other fictional elements editors have been victimized by your previous sockpuppetry campaigns, I would indeed recuse if I were placed in such a position. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Carrite, your statement "The problem is that there is a contingent of fanboy types that want to take him out for challenging the notability of their treasured articles..." demonstrates an assumption of bad faith and shows you are manifestly unsuitable to act as a mentor to Claritas. The problem is actually that there aren't enough editors interested in improving popular culture content using sources that exist, and nominators who nominate multiple articles per day, ignore WP:BEFORE, and ignore WP:ATD-preferred options like merging create a situation where content that could be improved is instead regularly deleted because of the AfD-prompted race against time to prove notability. You're entitled to differ with my assessment of the situation, of course, but casting aspersions and blaming Claritas' victims for his misbehavior is not appropriate mentoring behavior. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • @Themfromspace--Carrite started the partisan discussion; I'm merely pointing out how inappropriate it was. I already stated I would be recused on any vote. As far as the examples of my properly applying scrutiny to Claritas goes, I am proud to have appropriately kept the focus on his history of partisan socking. The fact that you happen to agree with his take on many fictional elements shouldn't play into anything: he socked, got banned, came back, and went back to the same behavior and same topics that were public at the time when he was socking before. Unfortunately, your post shows a tendency to excuse inappropriate behavior in those with whom we agree--I've made a habit of being harder on those with similar interests and wikiphilosophies to my own, because no one can say I do so because of their viewpoints. If everyone would take such an approahc, we could keep the wikiphilosophies out of it, and just focus on inappropriate behavior. I think that would be a better outcome all around--wouldn't you agree? Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • No - behaviour is problematic. Claritas you won't be victimised if you don't go looking for trouble. AfD is a confrontational area where you are extremely likely to end up arguing with others. If you produce good content, the rest will follow and other concerns can be laid to rest. I am good wiki-friends with several editors I would regularly clash with at AfD, yet get on very cordially elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Claritas: I didn't participate in the ArbCom discussions but because of the recentness of your unblock, and your rapid return to contentious areas, it was entirely appropriate to intervene in your attempt at a cleanstart.  Roger Davies talk 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • @Claritas: that's certainly something to think about for the future but my colleagues are unanimous that a clean start now would be too soon. In any case, who would police a secret topic-ban? It isn't realistic for ArbCom to do so.  Roger Davies talk 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • @Claritas: that seems the best way forward. I'll ask the clerks to close this now.  Roger Davies talk 10:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with Coren, essentially. Claritas, I think you've got potential as an editor, and encourage you to focus on content work at this time. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • To Claritas: You were allowed to resume editing on the basis that you would stay away from AfD discussions and focus on content, but instead, you returned to participating in those discussions and making contentious AfD nominations almost immediately. This would have been an issue, but might have been surmountable, if you had participated in AfD in a routine way, but you returned to the specific practices within AfD that made your participation problematic in the past. You haven't explained, either on this page or in your e-mails to the Committee, why you did this—and it's not as if you were addressing some issue of supervening importance that might conceivably have justified invoking IAR, such as a serious BLP problem that no one else was addressing. I agree with my colleagues that if you want to continue editing at this point, you really need to focus on content for awhile. If you do focus on content and you encounter problems not of your making in that context, I might be willing to reconsider a cleanstart request from you at that time, though I can't speak for my colleagues. You can also consider the option of a rename.
    • To Rich Farmbrough: Although you are right that ordinarily an editor may effect a cleanstart without anyone's permission, it was decided some time ago that an editor who is under an active sanction must consult with ArbCom first. There were too many prior incidents of users under sanctions or restrictions creating a new account and using it to make edits that would clearly have violated the sanction or restriction if made under the original account name. I am probably more open to allowing such restarts where an editor really does show evidence of wanting to turn over a new leaf, than are some of my arbitrator colleagues—but my colleagues can probably point to more than one instance in which we and the community have been burned before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that this is a community blocked user who the community unblocked. The user is not under sanctions, and there were no restrictions imposed in the unblocking, other than encouragement to seek mentoring: [125]. Users often write to the Committee for advice regarding a clean start. When a previously problematic user contacts the Committee regarding a clean start, we may advise against it as that heads off any potential future problems. However, I'm not sure ArbCom has the authority to forbid a clean start for a user not under any sanctions. In this case, the user has apparently re-entered the topic area that caused problems in the first place, and there is some genuine concern that the user would not make appropriate use of a clean start. Though there appears to be a lack of clarity regarding protocol in this situation, sometimes decisions have to be made which are in the best interest of the community even if there is no precise authority for such decisions. It may be helpful to have further discussion on this matter to see if the community are willing to explicitly grant the Committee authority to forbid users from creating new accounts when the Committee feels that such a restriction is in the best interest of Wikipedia. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Claritas commented (on his talkpage while his unblock request was pending, with the request that it be copied to ANI): "happy to have an indefinite self or community imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write." I believe members of the community relied on this commitment in deciding to give him another chance. That doesn't mean it's an eternal and unyielding commitment, if Claritas had posted an occasional "keep" or "delete" comment, or (for example) posted to an AfD of an article he had contributed to, I don't think anyone would have raised an eyebrow, let alone pressed a block button. But when Claritas returned almost immediately to the same type of contentious AfD participation that had raised problems in the past, an issue was created; and when he proposed to then start editing from a new account, an issue was created for our Committee, as the community would have know way of knowing about it. (That being said, personally I might not have blocked the account right away, but quietly kept an eye on it. That's because I'm notoriously the most mamby-pamby arbitrator, and it's hardly surprising that Coren and others didn't see things that way given his prior history.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not advocating for the user, I'm just not sure the Committee has the authority to forbid a clean start under these conditions. The user has not been subject to ArbCom sanctions, and is currently under no community sanctions. Neither the clean start policy nor ArbCom policy appears to grant the Committee the authority to deny a clean start in this situation. I am informed on the Committee email list that standard practice is to deny a clean start to any previously sanctioned user, and that the clean start policy page is lagging behind such practice. As such, it may be time to update that page, and so I have started a discussion: Wikipedia talk:Clean start#Forbid clean start to previously sanctioned users? SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The committee didn't forbid a clean start. An arbitrator, of his own volition, stopped it in its tracks once it had happened.  Roger Davies talk 22:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) ****In areas like this, rigidly applied policies that don't allow for reasonable discretion should be avoided. The reason the Committee has a role in this circumstance is because if an editor wants to make a clean start, he or she obviously can't convene a community discussion about whether he or she may do so. (Even if the sanctioned editor didn't mention the new username, the discussion would lead his or her erstwhile disputants or critics to start a hunt for it, which would be unhelpful for everyone.) Hence the confidential fact the sanctioned editor wants to start over needs to be addressed by a small group of editors entrusted with confidential information, and for better or worse, that's usually us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • The area of concern for this user is apparently participation in AfD. Currently they are under no restrictions regarding participation in this area. Claritas is suggesting not just a clean break, but a clean break with a restriction on participation in the problem area. This seems a better situation that the one we have - though there is the difficulty of monitoring the participation of Claritas if a clean start is given. The only people who would know which account Claritas had moved to would be the Committee - and the Committee is not set up to monitor users. What appears on the surface to be a reasonable request is in fact unworkable. A clean start would need to be without restrictions otherwise it is not an appropriate clean start. I think a clean start is not appropriate for this user in the current circumstances, and while there are questions regarding the clean start policy, those questions can be discussed away from this clarification request. My advice to Claritas would be that the community are very forgiving of users who have erred in the past, have apologised for their conduct, and have gone on to do productive work. Making mistakes is not a sin - we all make mistakes, it is how we deal with those mistakes that is the mark of our character. The community respects a user who redeems their mistakes rather than tries to move away from them. If you show the community that you can do productive work, then we will support you in your Wikipedia career. My suggestion is that you A) indicate that you are no longer seeking a clean start; B) voluntarily stay away from participation in AfD for six months, and C) work on building content in articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment/Archive_67&oldid=1137490658"