Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 58

Request for clarification: EEML (January 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me at 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 

Statement by Piotrus
I am regretfully reposting this request for clarification, as it was archived without a single arbitrator commenting clearly on the issue I asked. Instead, the previous request seemed to have been hijacked (in an AGF meaning of this world) by the off-topic (to my request) discussion about the effectiveness and applicability of i-bans with regards to other editors. I kindly ask editors to not comment on broad topics; my question is very narrow and simple: was FSP correct in declaring that I was violating my i-ban and thus threatening me with sanctions if I failed to remove myself from the AE discussion or not?

I am seeking clarification of EEML ("The editors sanctioned by name in this decision are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia (talk · contribs) on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate  and necessary dispute resolution.").

Let me state, clearly, that I have no desire to interact with Russavia, and that to my knowledge, he has not commented on me. This is, in fact, not about Russavia at all, but about the interpretation of the interaction ban (if I was to put it simply, how close can I get to a discussion in which Russavia is involved?). I participated in a discussion where I did not interact nor comment on Russavia, but I was nonetheless warned by an admin that I violated the i-ban. Did I indeed do so?

Here's the short sequence of events that lead to me posting this clarification requests:
 * Biophys posts an AE request on Russavia; I have no interest in it, have not read it then or even now;
 * VM comments in that thread; I have no interest in it but as he is a fellow editor I respect for his essays and thoughts on wikipedia, I read his post there. Of further note for my eventual involvement is that I took the notice of the part of VM's statement where he notes that he found an article edited by Russavia by following edits of other editors;
 * discussion grows and brings an increasingly large peanut gallery; I still have no interest in joining it, nor do I read most other comments, beyond admin's;
 * admin FSP makes a comment on the futility of interaction bans in general, suggesting that admins should not enforce them. That makes me concerned, as I credit them with lessening the amount of hostility directed at me since they were put in place. Next, FSP comments that VM "went there [to the article edited by Russavia] after him [Russavia]". At that point I decide to post a comment, stating that as a party to the bans, I've found them helpful, if in need of some clarification; I also point out to FSP that VM has already explained how he became involved in this issue. I also noted that if any admin considers my comment in this thread to be a violation of an i-ban, to let me know that and I'll remove it. Please note that I have not commented on Russavia, only on the i-bans in general, and on VM comment in particular;
 * almost at the same time I posted my comment, SarekOfVulcan blocks both Russavia and VM for a week. I expressed my disagreement with his action on his talk page in User_talk:SarekOfVulcan, pointing out to my comment and suggestion for i-ban clarification, and suggesting reducing blocks, in particular for VM who I believe has been involved in much lesser violation of the ban. I also note on SoV's talk page (User_talk:SarekOfVulcan), again, that if any admin believes my involvement there is in violation of the i-ban, to let me know and I'll remove my posts. (Having been blocked once by a trigger happy admin who misunderstood a topic ban, and unblocked through AE appeal, I prefer to be very careful with regards to such restrictions, and ask for clarifications, rather than an unblock);
 * approaching the end of this story, an admin (FSP) did post to my talk page, suggesting that my involvement in that thread was a violation of an i-ban (I also note that he has not responded to either of my two comments directed at him w/ regards to his posts in that case). In any case, I have self-reverted my three relevant posts (one to AE and two to SoV page), in a show of good faith (when in doubt, self-revert and ask for a review).
 * for the full record, do note that VM's block was indeed shortened.

So now I am asking for a review and clarification. I do not believe I have breached the i-ban: I am not concerned with Russavia, I am not commenting on him; at AE I was simply commenting on i-bans in general (an issue of interest to me since I am under one), and later, on SoV's page, commenting on a block of VM (with whom I have no i-ban, of course). VM's ban was related to Russavia, but that is of no concern to me, I was concerned that an editor (VM) was treated unfairly, and I believe I have the right to express my opinion on this (he was not treated unfairly by Russavia, so I am not commenting on any action of his). After all, we have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, and I believe we are allowed to comment on anything that is not explicitly prohibited (I am explicitly prohibited from commenting on Russavia, but not on VM's block, whatever its circumstances are). As a reminder, the i-ban I am in states: "...prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with Russavia" - yet despite the fact that I was not commenting on or interactign with Russavia, I was threatened with sanctions by an admin.

To put this in a wider perspective, I believe that if editors A and B are under i-ban, and editor A becomes involved in something - like designing a policy, or is part of an arbitration, or an enforcement that results in a policy change, or block or such, editor B has the right to participate in the discussion (policy discussion, etc.) and/or comment on the outcome (a policy change, or a block of editor C, with whom B have no i-ban), as long as he does not comment on editor A or interact with him directly.

'''Is my interpretation correct and I did not violate my i-ban by commenting on VM's block? Or is my interpretation wrong and I violated it, and thus FSP was right to threaten me with sanctions?'''

If the latter, I'd very much like a clear explanation how one can stretch "prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A" to "prohibited from commenting on editor B". It is my belief that if such acrobatic justification is presented, it will support some extreme interpretation of i-bans, encourage admin abuse of powers (confirm that they can threaten editors with sanction on such extreme interpretations) and thus be a blow to free speech on Wikipedia. I hope that the Committee will not open that Pandora's Box, but a ruling on who was right here is necessary to clarify the situation.

Or the committee can just say that I was within my rights to comment on VM's block, admins should be more conservative in i-bans interpretations and threats than in the instance discussed above, and we can move on.

I'd appreciate Committee's thoughts, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@FSP: "To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban." The problem is that your mind and the wording of the i-ban ("prohibited from interacting with or commenting on R.") exist in two different universes. Did I interacted with R.? No. Did I comment on R.? No. It's as simple as that. By interpreting it wider you assume bad faith, encourage wikilawyering and battleground mentality. If the Committee or anybody had a problem with me being able to comment on AE in general, or on other editors in general, or on VM in particular, or from discussing i-bans, and so on, they would have issued other tailored restrictions and banned me from AE, from interacting with VM or others, and so on. Since they did not, the only restriction on me is from "interacting with or commenting on R." which I most explicitly did not do. I believe I was within my rights to go to this AE thread and dispute the length of VM's block. Whom I was there for should be crystal clear from what I was asking: I was asking for a reduction of block on VM, not for an extension it on R. And there is nothing, nothing in the restriction on me that should prevent me from being able to discuss VM's block. Your arguments to the contrary are, I believe, an attempt to reduce my right to free speech on this project, with no basis in any existing restrictions. I am saddened to see that you assume bad faith on my part and that you assume that I came to the discussion to support an editor because of who he is, not because of the unjustice I perceived (and that was eventually recognized by others and led to the shortened block). From where I stand, sadly, if I was to abandon good faith, I could say that your action looked like you did not take kindly to me disagreeing with you, and threatened to sanction me if I did not withdrew from the discussion (with a distinct ring of admin power abuse in the air). But I refuse to let bad faith take me over; instead I still believe you acted in an attempt to improve the situation, not for any selfish personal reasons. I do believe, however, that you misinterpreted the boundaries of the i-ban in question, and in consequence, you set a dangerous precedence (see below for why and on what). Lastly, in the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd AGF my actions and consider I am acting for the good of the project ("believes an editor was wronged and acts because of that"), and not for any personal ("defends a friend because he is his friend") reasons. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

@FSP and others: "If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread." I disagree with this. First, I do not believe this is covered by the i-ban. Either the i-ban need to be clearly clarified with this very example, to prevent future confusion (because at least for me, this does not flow in any way whatsoever from the wording "C is prohibited from interacting with or commenting on editor A", or a separate sanction should be applied to relevant cases (stating that "C is also prohibited from commenting on any editor whom A is in conflict with". Second, I believe such a restriction of free speech for no good reason would be detrimental to the spirit of this project in general, and would deprive those discussions of valuable input. I understand the need to limit the criticism and negative reinforcement, this is the purpose of i-bans I fully support. But the above interpretation would achieve the contrary - limit support and positive reinforcement. In other words, we do not need more persecutors, but we do need more defenders and advocates for leniency that can stand up to to the system and its enforces (admins) and speak out in favor of the accused. Penalizing people for saying good things on others and arguing for more lenient approaches is, to me, very much against the spirit of this project. PS. I linked a number of essays I wrote on the subject of wikigovernance to reinforce my arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @FSP: I am willing to consider that some of my references that you cite where too direct and should not have been made, even if they were made with regards to another editor, and where not intended as criticism, merely as a comparison example. At the same time, you have already alleged here that there was something improper in my first post at AE you've cited, and your lack of clarification as to what you considered problematic caused me to also blank this post. Whereas I can see where you are coming from with regards to my second post, I stand by what I said above with regards to my first and third posts. In hindsight, I think that the best way to deal with this would've been for you to ask me clearly to blank my second post only. If you would agree with me that nothing in my first and third post constituted a violation, I can certainly take your comments about the second post to heart, and we could end this discussion here and now, shake hands, both of us having learned a little through this, and hope to avoid misunderstanding in the future. (For the record, we wouldn't be here if you had replied to me directly with clear examples and explanation earlier when I posted on your talk page in reply to your message to me (here). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
I have previously stated my detailed proposal for how i-bans should work, which I can re-post here. i-bans should in no way accord de jure ownership of any page on WP based on who got there first. That's censorship, plain and simple. The current interpretation of i-bans is inappropriate and an open invitation for abuse, aggravating—not dissipating—acrimony. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
@Fozzie: Let's not mix up the issues. This wasn't about "forcing people out of topic areas", and it wasn't about commenting on any article topics. I do in fact share your reservations about the use of interaction bans when it comes to article editing, but the case Piotrus is asking about was something different. It was about commenting on an AE thread. And this, I maintain, is the one area where interaction bans actually do make sense, and I therefore stand by the warning I gave him in the situation. One of the core problems with the EEML team back in the day was that they had this habit of always turning up together as a tag team in noticeboard threads, supporting each other and pressing for sanctions against their common opponents together. This, I understand, is the main reason why the interaction ban with respect to Russavia was imposed. And these tag-teaming structures are still very much active. Even today, you will hardly find an ANI or AE thread involving any one member of the EEML team where at least one or two of the others don't immediately turn up in his support.

In the present instance, there was an AE thread in which Russavia was one of the parties involved, and had received a sanction, and his opponents were other members of the EEML group. Piotrus, who had no prior involvement in that specific conflict, turned up to argue for the use of interaction bans in general [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=457676385&oldid=457675566], which, in this situation, amounted to an argument for applying sanctions against Russavia. He then made another comment to the administrator who had just imposed sanctions on Russavia and one other party (Volunteer Marek) [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=457679084&oldid=457678215]. In this comment, he was making a comparison between Russavia and VM which was designed to paint Russavia in a worse light than the other party; hence, this too amounted to an argument in favour of sanctioning Russavia. He can now argue all he likes that he wasn't there because of Russavia but because of the other guy, but the fact remains that the effect of his intervention was to add pressure to the anti-Russavia side. To my mind, this was a clear breach of the interaction ban.

This is the message we really want to send through interaction bans: people, stay away from noticeboards; mind your own business. If A is in a conflict with B and admins are considering sanctions against either of the two, and C is a friend of B's but interaction-banned from A, then the last place in the world C has any business hanging around is that noticeboard thread. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Piotrus: are you still denying you were commenting on Russavia? This is mind-boggling. I'll quote from the exact posting of yours that's at issue here: [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&diff=457679084&oldid=457678215] "an editor with a history of i-ban violations and multiple diffs showing recent violations […] one editor has two previous blocks (including from this summer) […] I do not believe they deserve equal-length blocks […] the number of current incidents/violations […] the number of sanctioned violations […] one editor has been asking a lot about the i-ban, and presumably knows a lot more about the boundaries than the other one" – The "one editor" to whose sanctions you were referring was Russavia. Can you tell me in what world of your imagination each of these sentences is not a "comment about Russavia"? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * About your first posting at question [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=457676385&oldid=457675566]: If editor A has an obvious stake in a noticeboard thread, because he is either the principal instigator/accuser or the principal defendant in the complaint at issue, or the potential subject of sanctions being deliberated, then any posting in that thread amounts to "interacting with" editor A. That, to me, is so basic and so blindingly obvious I really have to wonder why you apparently can't wrap your head around it. About the content in detail: you were responding to a posting that could be understood as an argument in favour of not sanctioning R.; you were arguing against that view, so you were, in effect, implicitly arguing for sanctioning R. Which means you were not just interacting with R by virtue of simply being there; you were negatively interacting with him (independently of course of the merits of your arguments, or of the preceding ones you were answering to.) More directly, though perhaps less importantly, there was also your question "why is a post by a non-admin still present in the admin only discussion?", which was referring directly to R. and obviously constitutes a direct comment on him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Question from Russavia
For the Committee, I only have one question...in 27 parts.

If you refer to ARBRB, I am restricted from interacting or commenting with editors from the EEML case. Firstly, this is somewhat vague, because one could wikilawyer until the cows come home (as is evidently prevalent in this area) that this could prevent me from interacting with say FPaS, given that he gave evidence, and hence is "from the EEML case". However, common sense, and the non-wikilawyering editor, would tell you "from the EEML case" clearly means EEML members. This restriction was placed on me ostensibly for reporting editors who were breaking their topic bans, or acting on behalf of banned editors, and at no time were my reports found by the Committee to be vexatious in nature (this was even stated by Shell Kinney).

On the other hand, we have EEML, only those editors who were named in sanctions are banned from interacting or commenting on me. This, ostensibly, is because of issues such as harrassment and vexatious reporting as described at EEML.

I made mention of this weird interaction ban at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision. One can refer to the current amendment request for a prime example of how that problem has played out.

A few weeks ago, I became aware of a potential sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:Poeticbent (User:A. Kupicki). I was made aware of a possibility that Poeticbent was socking. Once I glanced at the talk page, it was plainly obvious that we had another sock on our hands. Because of the interaction ban which the Committee placed on myself, I didn't report it. But it makes no sense to me that I, as an editor in good standing, would be unable to directly bring to the community's attention a sockpuppet of an indeffed user. This is kind of unusual, in that I have zero tolerance for sockpuppets, as does the larger community, but in this situation I was unable to do anything about it at the time. Some four weeks after I was made aware of the sockpuppet, another editor has obviously clued in on the situation and the sockpuppet has now been blocked. But shouldn't socks be nuked on sight? Eight weeks of clear sockpuppetry is eight weeks too much.

Additionally, although I tend to stear clear of topics which are magnets for nationalistic POV-pushing and which are favoured by these sockpuppets, instances can arise whereby I could find myself editing an article which has seen editing from an editor who is such a sockpuppet. What is one supposed to do in such circumstances? Because happily editing along with someone who the community has indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry is not something that any editor should need to put up with. There should be an avenue in which I can openly bring to the community's attention evidence of sockpuppetry. I would ask the committee to look at that, and advise accordingly, because it makes no sense that I should be prevented from presenting evidence on disruptive banned users having a presence on WP. This would entail and  and I should state that whilst I do not keep tabs on any editor, obviously situations will arise where it is necessary to address issues, and without fear of dramuh or sanctions being enacted upon me.

Additionally, I would also like the committee to look at formally completely lifting the one-way interaction ban on myself with the following editors:, ***, **, , *, *, *, *, *

My reasoning for this is as follows. Those without * identifiers are active users, but I have not interacted, nor commented on them, since I don't know when (long time ago). Those with a single * are only occasional editors and it makes no sense to prevent editing on my part when things such as WP:BRD can easily be adhered to in instances when they are required, whilst also ensuring that commenting is only related to content. Those marked with ** are indefinitely blocked from the project. Those marked with *** (i.e. Digwuren) are still technically under EEML, to be followed by EEML, and then followed by EEML; in this case it makes no sense to technically stop me from editing when for all intents and purposes this editor has abandoned the account completely.

In many instances, I have never actually interacted with some of these editors, and my only involvement with them is that they were EEML members. So I would request that the committee look at those, and lift the interaction bans with individuals accordingly.

Given that Piotrus has stated that he has no desire of interacting with me, which has thrown me aback somewhat, interaction bans with Piotrus, Radeksz, Martintg and Vecrumba can stay in place, until such time as amendments are brought for the committee's action. The rest I see as a partial way to look forward in editing, which can only be a good thing. Russavia Let's dialogue 15:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I've stated before I have concerns that if Interaction Bans are being used as a blunt force instrument to force people out of topic areas ("I'm there already, so you can't edit the article because otherwise you'd be breaching the interaction ban!" Perhaps it's time to convert them into topic bans, to reduce the chance of this occurring. Furthermore, there is such a web of inter-connected people in this area that it becomes impossible to comment on one part of the topic area without engaging others in which you are not supposed to be interacting.. again, it argues that a different tact needs to be taken. I am disinclined to tell admins working in this highly heated topic area to be looser on the reins, but I will wait for further statements. SirFozzie (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was answering one side of this, while looking at the other side (which I touched on in my previous statement). The question I would ask myself in enforcing the interaction bans... "Would a reasonable person consider this commenting on the person they have an interaction ban with". If the answer to that is yes, then there's your answer if it's a violation of the interaction ban or not. A reasonable person would conclude that yes, he's at least bringing up the person he has an interaction ban with, so it would be a violation, and as such, should at least be warned not to continue with that line of conversation. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If the issue in a noticeboard discussion is "did X violate a sanction?" and Y is banned from interacting with X, then Y should not comment on the issue. On the other hand, if the discussion evolves into discussing a much broader general issue going beyond the specific case (e.g. "how should interaction bans work?) that can become a precedent, then I can understand why Y would want to comment and could reasonably perceive he was not violating the ban. I think this is such an intermediate case. Unfortunately, I don't think there can be a bright-line rule for these situations, and all I can do is urge both Piotrus and the AE administrators to be cautious and thoughtful and to avoid borderline cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Recused on EEML,  Roger Davies  talk 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Banning policy mentions interaction bans, and says that if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, then editor X should not make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly. In this context, commenting on an editor in a noticeboard discussion could be an infringement of the ban. It's worth noting that emailing the Arbitration Enforcement admins isn't a violation of an interaction ban, so the banned editors thoughts can still be considered. PhilKnight (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abortion motion (January 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  at 01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by HJ
procedure notes: first, I'm not sure who (if anybody) needs to be notified of this but I will leave a link from the discussion at WT:ACN and will be happy to notify any editor suggested if necessary ; second, I've never filed a request for clarification before, so guidance (and patience!) from arbitrators or clerks on any formatting errors would be appreciated.

This request pertains to the December 2011 motion (permanent link) which amended remedy 1 of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion.

Having discussed the matter with arbitrators, predominantly on WT:ACN, it seems that this motion is ambiguous in its intent and I fear that what may be clearly implied to administrators currently working in the abortion topic area may not be as obvious to others and may not be retained in institutional memory. The current wording of the motion suggests that administrators may semi-protect articles related to abortion (an option already allowed to them under the Protection Policy) and that administrators may only semi-protect abortion-related articles for a maximum of three years.

Without wishing to speak for the committee, I believe the intent of the motion was to:
 * Encourage administrators to apply a lower threshold for semi-protection of abortion-related articles and in particular their talk pages—of which protection is normally discouraged by the protection policy.
 * Authorise administrators to pre-emptively protect particular abortion-related articles which are likely to suffer from sustained disruption with potential consequences beyond Wikipedia.
 * Provide administrators with the authority of acting under an arbitration remedy in the event that another administrator takes exception to a protection that would not be in "normal" circumstances.

I would also suggest that any amended motion should make clear that uninvolved administrators working in the abortion topic area still have the option of protecting articles under the provisions of the protection policy and that this motion is supplemental. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  01:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Coren, Fozzie: I disagree. It may be obvious to you and to those who followed the case closely what you mean, but to somebody who doesn't fall into those categories, all you've done is said that admins can protect abortion-related articles for three years. you haven't told us why that might be desirable, you haven't said anything about the pre-emptive protection which Roger Davies suggested was an important part of the motion, and your assumption that nobody would take this as meaning that it supersedes normal procedures would seem to be flawed, judging by this log entry. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem
First, I'd like to thank HJ for initiating this request. As will be evident from the WT:ACN discussion, I believe that clarifying the reasoning behind this decision and its intent is highly desirable. I recognise that comments below indicate that (at least) Coren and SirFozzie do not see a need for a motion to clarify the semi-protection issue in the abortion area (broadly defined) but I submit that their reasoning is flawed. As I understand it, the suggestion is that no clarification is needed as the remedy is already clear. I have no doubt that it is clear from their point of view, but the issue is whether it is clear from a non-ArbCom member's perspective. As you may know, I work as an academic. When I submit a paper for consideration by a journal I expect to have some issues raised where I believe the manuscript is clear and I need to remind myself that I *know* what I meant and I have to accept that the reviewers are better placed to judge whether a point is unclear. Please, try to step back and ask not whether the remedy is clear to you but rather whether the remedy can reasonably be interpreted in way(s) that you did not intend. Ask yourself how an unusual - or even extreme - remedy with no rationale presented might be seen by those who do not have limitless faith in ArbCom. Truly, a remedy contemplating semi-protection for three years with no accompanying explanatory finding and no rationale is deficient. I know from Risker's explanation that there is very good reason for empowering agressive semi-protection but had I not read that user talk page post I could have easily been wondering what you were thinking. I can easily imagine how the remedy could be seen as ArbCom over-reaching. This remedy will be in force for three years. There could easily be administrators applying it in eighteen months who have yet to even join the project; surely suggesting that you pass a motion to provide a rationale and to clarify what actions you are authorising is not an unreasonable request. EdChem (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I really don't see a point to further amendments or motions about this. Your reading above is pretty much on the nose, but that's also the straightforward plain reading of the amended remedy as currently written; and there is no way to write a motion in a manner that cannot hypothetically be misinterpreted or wikilawyered around. As far as I know, no arbitration remedy has ever been (seriously) read or implied to mean that they replaced the normal process unless it explicitly states that it does; certainly nobody interprets discretionary sanctions to mean that normal blocks or processes do not still apply, for instance.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coren. Anyone working in the area doesn't need another formal amendment to understand this is what we mean. SirFozzie (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on a comment by SirFozzie on the mailing list, I think we could make a note on the talk page of the case, and include a diff about this discussion. However, I agree that a formal amendment isn't needed. PhilKnight (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the amendment should be read alongside the remedy, in which case it allows admins at their discretion to semi-protect for up to three years certain abortion related articles which they feel may be or are vulnerable, and to do so under ArbCom sanction, logging the action. Other forms of protection, such as full protection or indefinite semi are still available, and can be challenged, though a three year semi-protection done under ArbCom sanction shouldn't be undone without going through the procedures outlined in WP:AE. The amendment removes the necessity of all the related articles being protected regardless of vulnerability, while giving alert admins the liberal power to move swiftly to prevent a problem before it happens.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Timotheus Canens (January 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by   brew crewer  (yada, yada) at 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Statement by Brewcrewer
User: Timotheus Canens is a former administrator but continues to act as an administrator at AE, by for example lifting topic bans, editing the Uninvolved Administrator section, and proposing bans. Today I asked him to stop, but he continued to act as an admin subsequent to my request and refused my request.

Firstly, I would like to clarify whether a topic ban validly enacted as part of AE enforcement is considered vacated when it was "removed" by a former admin if the former admin originally placed the restriction when he was an administrator?

Secondly, and this is not really to clarify anything, I would like ARBCOM to make clear that former admins should not be acting as if they are admins at AE. I would move TC's comments to the appropriate section, but wanted to confirm with ARBCOM first. Thank you.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Sir Fozzie. I don't think it is much of a concern that someone will claim that since the topic ban was not technically vacated, the editor under question is editing in violation of the ban. However it should be of concern when a former admin (even if good standing) is acting like an admin. No explanation is necessary. There is no good reason for Timotheus Canens to undertake admin actions or act like an admin when he isn't one. If he wants to act in an administrative capacity let him regain his tools (which I don't oppose). -- brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment. Timotheus Canens has reacquired his "bit" on his main account so I guess this issue is now stale. I would however like to urge TC to avoid this type melodramatic behavior. Giving up the tools, acting like an admin without the tools, refusing to stop when asked to, then asking back for the tools a few weeks later, blanking his own talk page,and then changing his mind again a day later. We don't want an admin who appears to spend the majority of his WP-activity at the AE noticeboard to exhibit the drama-queen type of behavior he himself should be adept at dealing with at AE. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare
This was discussed last year on WT:Arbitration, I believe. I'm going from memory, but I think the conclusion is that administrators without the admin bit shouldn't be doing anything at AE. With that said, I think that lifting one's own bans is entirely reasonable and can/should be done by the user even if they don't have the admin bit.  NW  ( Talk ) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't find the discussion. Maybe someone else remembers what I'm talking about though? I definitely remember Kirill stating something during the conversation, but that's it.  NW  ( Talk ) 06:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate
Some clarification on this would be nice. When I saw Tim commenting in the uninvolved admin section I actually thought he had returned to his admin duties as did an admin who apparently acted based on that perception. Several other admins also responded to him in that section as though he was just another admin suggesting sanctions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
Speaking as another recently resigned admin, I think you have to be very careful in how you act if you remain active in areas where you previously acted as an admin. For example, I don't think it would be reasonable for me to close any DRVs that don't require the bit as the convention is that admins should close DRVs. Nevermind the fact that I have closed 100s of the darn thing. By the same token, if a user asked me to review a previous AFD close, I don't think it would be very userfriendly to refuse to engage because you don't have the bit. Personally, I think the situation is like an arb who is leaving the committee, they are allowed to participate in cases that they have already been involved in. To me, this suggests that its reasonable for Tim to act as an admin-emeritus in cases where they have imposed sanctions and that they can by virtue of the fact that they are reviewing their own action and have resigned in good odour remove a topic ban they imposed. Beyond this Tim shouldn't be involved at AE in any kind of quasi admin role. Spartaz Humbug! 07:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by TC
I had always taken the view that administrators who turned in the mop in uncontroversial circumstances are still admins, just temporarily with the bit flipped off. Since they could receive the bit back by simple request at BN, I don't see the point of insisting on that empty formality. In this particular case, I am currently traveling (you can check that out with a quick CU if you want), so I have been (and will be) editing from my alternate non-admin account. I intended to ask for my tools back when I return to my usual location. If you really insist on the empty ritual of me asking for the tools that I would not be using anyway until I return from my trip, fine. I just don't see the point of it. T. Canens (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald
I agree with AGK that the sysop bit is binary - you either have an account with it, or without it. Accounts without the bit can't do a few things that accounts with the bit can do, and we don't (and shouldn't) attempt to differentiate between accounts without the bit.

My problem is, and where I think the confusion lies here, is that I dislike there being anything that an account without the bit CAN TECHNICALLY DO, but isn't actually allowed to do. That creates a status differential, rather than a differential of technical ability. And it is what causes the problem when someone has a right to the status, but lacks the bit. It is why I detest the practice of people saying "only an admin can do this". If only an admin can do this (i.e. bit needed) then this shouldn't need said - and it is technically the non-admin can't possibly do it (whether they are allowed to or not). I also hate the practice of people marking stuff as "non-admin close". A close is a close, it is either a good one or a bad one, who did it doesn't matter.

If adminship is "no big deal", then it only matters at the "being trusted with some tools" level. We don't do rights of status and access beyond that. So, in short, I agree with AGK that we don't want to try to work out who, that doesn't have the bit, still has the status of admin. But I also think that the user had every right to do exactly whatever he did at AE. The only question is - is he clued enough to do it, and did he do it right.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Considering it was the thought of the committee that this was a break, and that Timotheus could get the mop back on request, I don't have too much of a problem with it (especially since he was simply reversing an action he took while he was an AE admin), but I will wait for further comments/statements. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An administrator who gave up the tools non-controversially can request them back at any time; thus, if Tim were to encounter something in an AE request that he felt needed immediate administrative action, he could, in theory, request the tools back and take care of the matter himself, as an admin. If he then chose to, he could immediately resign the tools again, although speaking as a crat it would be a bit annoying. ;-) Barring any sort of incident that would bar him access to the tools, I don't see an issue with this. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to add, this is now somewhat moot, as Tim has requested (and been given) his rights back. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I must take a more severe line. The administrator right is sometimes called 'the bit' because it is a binary assignment: an account either is an administrator, or is not. I think there are far more serious issues on Wikipedia, but nevertheless my view is that to allow this kind of thing is a slippery slope: if former administrators can enforce arbitration decisions, we then have to consider in each case whether they stepped down "under a cloud" and how likely they are to have their sysop right returned. In the past, determining whether a sysop resigned without controversy has not been simple, and ideally such a discussion would be reserved for the resysopping process - not extended to every enforcement thread the former sysop contributes to. Frankly, the enforcement process is complicated enough without adding the headache of checking up on whether an account that doesn't have the sysop flag is in good standing; the issue also complicates the process for first-time users of the enforcement process, which is suboptimal. While I agree with Hersfold that the opinion of T. Canens (whom I regard as a thoughtful and useful user, not that this changes the situation we are in) would be useful in appeals or amendments of his previous enforcement actions, I request that he abstains from taking new enforcement actions unless or until he is resysopped (which I hope he is in the near future). We don't need the headache, nor more scope for AE wikilawyering. AGK   [• ]  19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My mind is along Spartaz's thought process, I don't have an issue with Tim revoking something he imposed when he had the bit, but I would support a motion clarifying that AE remedies can only be imposed by flagged admins. AE is contentious enough, and the issues of whether an editor is an admin in good standing yet lacking the flag can only be unnecessary drama.  (And personally, I think if you don't have the flag, you don't do things limited by rule to admins, as these style sanctions are.) Courcelles 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with SirFozzie and Courcelles; I don't see a problem here. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ....aaaand this is rendered moot now by Timotheus Canens getting the bit back, so I guess it's time to close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from this terse and inappropriate response to a comment, Timotheus Canens has behaved in the best interest of Wikipedia, so I don't see there's an issue with him. The clarification request is, however, interesting in that it has pointed to a grey area not just in AE, but across Wikipedia: how welcome are editors in good standing to do actions that don't require the admin tools, but which require good judgement? Generally it appears to me that we work with an understanding that if a discussion/action is straightforward it can be closed/done by any editor in good standing, if the discussion is controversial and/or has a big impact we prefer an admin to close it as an admin has the consensus of the community to make actions that require good judgement and understanding, if the discussion is mega (such as the recent verifiability discussion) we look to three admins to make the close. If there is some uncertainty about an action the action can be questioned or challenged, and if needed it can be looked at again; we have informal (and sometimes formal as in DRV) procedures in place for this. If in any particular area, or with any particular editor, there are repeated concerns, the community tends to resolve the issue, or bring them to ArbCom. As this is a one-off (and fairly unique) situation it is too soon for either the community or ArbCom to be looking into it. Is an admin's judgement impaired because they have temporarily relinquished the tools in order to take a break? No, I don't think so.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Jimmy Wales' powers (January 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  ASCIIn2Bme (talk) at 02:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * the rest of Wikipedia editors, but I don't think individually notifying all other editors is practical in this case. Perhaps a WP:CENT notice should be added?
 * the rest of Wikipedia editors, but I don't think individually notifying all other editors is practical in this case. Perhaps a WP:CENT notice should be added?

Statement by ASCIIn2Bme
Does ArbCom still recognize the principle it set forth in where it stated that "Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so"?

@Lord Roem: I assure you that it has practical implications. And the ArbCom policy enumerates some powers that Jimbo has (e.g. as ultimate appeals instance), but doesn't say those are all of his powers as founder. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@LR (2): Like (scroll for the 2nd reply green chunk/reply) and. And the putative RfC is about a future delegation of powers, which strongly implies that Jimbo currently has certain powers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@AGK: Ok, I guess this shall remain a mystery in the sum of knowledge of the present ArbCom (unlike the 2006 one.) Happy New Year! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Hersfold: Thanks for a the info on administrative actions. Assuming [hypothetically] that Jimbo decided to undo the closure of a RfC performed by another administrator, would that count as an administrative action appealable to ArbCom? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond my ken: From the pink header: "Use this section to request further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision." I don't see where it says that requests need be limited to "results". And principles in the final decision are results of a case anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem
I do not think this Request for Clarification is properly made. This is likely an attempt to begin a Wikipedia governance debate at RfArbitration at its worst or an abstract question at its best.

Jimbo has stated in posts on his talk page in the past few days that he plans to open a community RfC later this year on a process to transition away from his traditional powers. It is this community-driven process that should be used to discuss such important issues, with an eye towards reaching consensus, rather than this attempt at "Clarification".

Lastly, I would direct my friend to the new Arbitration Policy which may provide the clarification he so desires. Best Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @ASCIIn2Bme - practical implications in what context? Why exactly are you raising this issue now? At the least, I'm very curious to know. Lord Roem (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
(1) The question of what Jimbo can and cannot do is not within ArbCom's remit. (2) This request is in itself improper, in that it does not ask for clarification of the result of a case, but seeks to force a discussion on one of the many findings involved in the case. There's no indication I can find that such a purpose is legitimate in a "Request for Clarification". I urge the Committee to reject this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Tarc: The statement of principle from 2006 was made in the course of determining the outcome of a case. There is no case pending at this time which requires a similar determination, so no need for "clarification". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc
I don't think anyone here believes Arbcom can outright rescind or really affect Jimbo's powers. That 2006 principle was an affirmation of the reality of the project at that time, and IMO what is being asked here is just a simple, similar statement on the reality of 2011. Consider an analogy to a newspaper that endorses a candidate, then down the road withdraws that endorsement.

To his credit, I do not believe that he would even try to "make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so", per what is laid out in here. Perhaps you could just issue a clarification along the lines of "The 2006 principle has been rendered moot by WP:JIMBO".

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The Arbitration Committee does not govern this project, and it would be a gross overstep of our role to rule on Jimmy's role on Wikipedia at this point. I will therefore not comment at greater length on this issue, aside from recommending that, if it is to be brought up anywhere, it is not here. AGK   [• ]  04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that this is an appropriate location for this discussion. While the principle you note was set down in an Arbitration case, it is important to note that the case took place almost six years ago; much has changed since then, which the community, Committee, and Jimbo are all aware of. Given that there is an upcoming RfC on the matter, I'd highly recommend you raise this there and see what feedback you get from the community on the matter. At present, the Arbitration policy holds that any administrative action by Jimbo (blocks, etc.) can be appealed to the Committee (as with the ban appeal currently being heard), however it does not mention his ability to declare policy by fiat. I realize this is a bit of a non-answer, however I don't see that it's really something the Committee is best able to respond to just now; at any time, the community may, as a whole, change policy in such a way that makes previous arbitration principles obsolete, and it's very likely that's going to happen in the near future. Making any official statement now could adversely affect that process, which - speaking for myself at least - is probably best avoided. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Struck a portion of the above, it was pointed out to me I'd misread a section of the policy. Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a huge question, which I'll do my best to answer succinctly.<ol><li>Part of the answer lies in the Arbitration policy, where it says: The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced.... While the Committee will typically take into account its earlier decisions when deciding new cases, previous decisions do not create binding precedent. As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions will be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context (cf. Arbitration policy#Policy and precedent). So, from this I conclude that as ArbCom neither creates policy nor creates precedent, the 2006 finding is neither policy nor precedent.<li>The next question is whether the committee has jurisdiction over Jimmy's conduct: there is no "Head of State" immunity in the arbitration policy and Jimmy has been a party to a number of cases. However, it is possible to conceive of actions where he is explicitly acting in a WMF capacity and, in these instances, the committee explicitly has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff... (cf. Arbitration policy#Jurisdiction). For transparency, such actions are usually made from an account clearly flagged as a WMF one (cf: User:Moonriddengirl and her WMF account, User:Mdennis (WMF)).;<li>Finally, appeals of remedies in arbitration cases may be appealed to, and heard by, Jimmy unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions (cf. Arbitration policy#Appeal of decisions).</ol>So, in a nutshell, this is not the place to raise a complicated constitutional issue. Perhaps wait for the upcoming RFC on Jimmy and Governance?   Roger Davies  talk 07:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think if we reiterated that statement today, a large portion, if not an outright majority, of the community would reject it as us making policy about making policy. Jimbo's role has evolved since the time that was written, and the community (not Arbcom) has assumed more responsibility for self-governance. This is a very good example why we fretted over the wording of handling precedents in the arbitration policy: we want to provide the greatest level of consistency, commensurate with the fact that the encyclopedia, its policies, and governing structures are all continuously evolving. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The scope of the Committee's responsibility is outlined here, which doesn't include general discussion on Jimbo's role as policy maker. That would be for the community as a whole to discuss. It would however be within our remit to examine Jimbo's behaviour, which would include the scenario of Jimbo edit warring over policy. It's worth noting that the Committee deals with conduct not policy; and in dealing with conduct incidents the Committee may make comments and observations on matters (such as consensus, guidelines, policies) related to the incident which exist at the time, though as matters change over time, these observations may become outdated.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  13:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Abortion (January 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! at 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 5.1
 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * All parties have been notified on their talk page.

Amendment 1

 * That the remedy be vacated and replaced with a binding structured community discussion.

Statement by Steven Zhang
It's no coincidence that I am filing this request only just after the start of the new year, that was my intentions, as I wanted the new committee to be able to consider this. I've been discussing it with arbitrator Casliber over the past few weeks (see the discussion). In short, remedy 5.1 would be vacated, and a structured discussion would be opened, similar to the structure suggested in the remedy. The difference here is that it is a community process. Instead of being closed by administrators appointed by the committee, three editors would close the discussion, an admin, someone who has knowledge in the area (for example in this situation, a member from WikiProject Medicine) and a user experienced in dispute resolution. This is somewhat similar to the recent RFC on verifiability in terms of structure. Once the discussion has closed, it would be logged at the arbitration case as well as general sanctions.

A few things need to be considered here. I think that this kills a few birds with a single stone. It empowers the community to resolve these disputes, and addresses the idea of "ArbCom doesn't touch content disputes" which may have been the partial cause for delay in this arbitration case. I also note that the discussion by ArbCom has not been set up yet, whether due to lack of interest or the holiday season, the discussion still needs to take place.

The proposal I made (Binding RFCs, though the name isn't quite right) is currently under discussion at the Village pump, though discussion has been slow. It really needs a test case, and I think that this would fit perfectly. I'm happy to work with ArbCom to set up the discussion (though I will not take much part in the actual discussion as a party of the case) but I do think that this would be a win-win situation. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Replies to arbitrator comments
@Risker, I disagree that the proposal has received no support. Discussion has been slow at the Village Pump, but there has also been expressions of support on the proposal talk page. It's the lack of participation that is the issue, which is why I discussed the possibility of this remedy being handled by the community as a test case. As for how the remedy is inadequate, well, I don't mean to be rude, but the remedy states that "A structured discussion on the names of the...abortion articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter." This structured discussion has yet to even be created, let alone the discussion started, and this is possibly due to a lack of interest within the committee, as arbitrator Casliber noted. It appears that from the case decision as well as the PD talk page that Cas was the drafter of remedy 5.1 and was the one that was going to set up the structured discussion, so while indeed it was with the consent of only one arbitrator that I came here, I figured it was the one that counted. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony, will do the notifying in the morning All parties notified. As for the remedy being inadequate, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the case took over three months to be resolved, and I know that the internal discussion on how to deal with the article names was a factor in this. The discussion proposed in remedy 5.1 has yet to take place, and I feel that this process can word. It would be carefully observed by the committee (and likely by many others), and id expect nothing less. I apologise if I came off as rude. I have a vested interest here, that the process I am proposing be used is one I have developed myself, but I think since little has happened thus far, then it might as well be dealt with this way. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@Jclemens, I came here after it was suggested by Cas. I can say little more except to suggest you read over the thread on their talk page which I linked to. I think that explains it better than I could, and I'd rather not take Casliber's comments out of context. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork, the main problem I'm facing here is apathy, or lack of awareness. Participation in the discussion at VP has been low, so I was thinking that a test case could work, and this situation is an ideal one. I'll see if I can get a watchlist notice to get more participation. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony, in short, the remedy is inadequate because it hasn't been followed through. No discussion has yet to be set up. I trust that there is some new talent on ArbCom, including yourself, though I honestly did think that the committee would jump at the idea. After all, arbs aren't exactly falling over each other to start the discussion. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@ArbCom, I get the feeling that you are ignoring this request. While I realise the Civility enforcement case is keeping you all busy, but that's why you were elected. If y'all think that my idea is a bad one, then go ahead and say it, but at least say something rather than nothing. The case has been closed for a month and a half now, and this structured discussion was supposed to have been well under way now, but it is not. That's why I am here. It's really up to all of you. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@Anthony, I am in a bit of a sticky situation here, mainly because my personal and professional feelings are colliding. The consenquences of a friend being on ArbCom, eh. :-) I didn't start or setup any discussion because the remedy seemed to detail that this was something ArbCom would do, and as it was noted that it would be opened once the Abortion case closed. My impression was that arbitrator Casliber would set this up, as drafter of the remedy. I apologise for my abruptness and/or rudeness. I do acknowledge that ArbCom is busy, but at the same time feel that issues should be prioritised in chronological order. If ArbCom is happy for me to help set up the discussion, then that's fine. I can help with that too. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Replies to parties
@Binksternet, nothing in remedy 5.1 has even happened yet. My proposal in this case is simple. Instead of a structured discussion where ArbCm would set up the discussion and appointed admins by the committee close the discussion, as a community (but in this case guided by the committee) would partake in a structure discussion, and three admins would close the discussion. There's really little difference, apart from it giving the community the power to resolve content disputes like Abortion, and possibly others like Senkaku Islands, Muhammad etc. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

@Nyyankee, eh, I see the participation of disinterested people as necessary in the process, but agree that the discussion could turn into a vote if it is not watched carefully. That said, the structure of the discussion would have two parts, part one is where users would present evidence for their proposed title. This would be in the form of policy, backed up with other evidence. No other discussion would take place at this stage. Then, after a period of time, an AFD styled discussion would take place, where users would "vote" on their preferred title, with reasoning e.g. "I prefer the titles of pro-life and pro-choice movements as the titles and this is supported by X policy which is backed up by Y sources" or something like that. It's strength of argument that will be weighed at the close, which will be done by three users, so it is more likely that the outcome will be a fair one, and weigh comments, as opposed to doing a raw number count. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1
The three editors close thing (as well as presenting a strong evidence based case) was also done at Talk:China and seems to have been relatively successful.

All in all this is probably needed, there seems no other sane way to solve these kind of disputes beyond the creation of WP:RFCCOM which never seems to get anywhere - or letting Arbcom do it, which has a lot of opposition and is probably bad. While you may be able to blame me for pushing a couple of cases in your direction we've just had abortion which needs this and we're dealing with Muhammad now which has similar issues which need a binding resolution. And we've also had Senkaku Islands very recently as well.

We probably have a whole bunch more cases like them that people have failed to escalate elsewhere on the project, I mean Muhammad got to half a million words before any serious escalation was done, that's insane. Discussions of that length basically prevent everyone from taking part - so people with families and stuff like that as they literally don't have the time. That isn't good. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet
I see no reason to replace Remedy 5.1 which was painfully obtained after much discussion and consideration. A test case for new practices should be found elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NYyankees51
I see benefits and a possible detriment to this - The benefit is that this is a much simpler process and easier to understand and participate in, and it allows for consensus, not a majority vote. The negative is that it might make it too easy for disinterested people or meatpuppets to come in and say "Yes per above", and that would skew the vote. I think I would support this; I'll see what others think. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anthony Appleyard
After wading through much text, I get the impression that, in summary, the topic to be discussed is "In this case, as with Senkaku Islands and some others, discussion goes on endlessly and never comes to a decision. Therefore, let one neutral man be appointed to make a final ruling.". Please, is that correct? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recuse on the specific case, but I will add some general comments. It is my firm belief that Arbcom decisions (or portions thereof) should not be overturned unless there is a clear need to do so. What is being proposed here is the preference of a single user, and it is not rooted in policy but is instead based on a suggested change in practice that has received almost no support. There is no indication that this specific situation has been discussed anywhere other than a one-on-one discussion with an individual arbitrator. There is no indication that there is any support at any discussion pages related to this issue to change the decision made. I'd suggest that the Requests for Amendment page is not the appropriate "first stop" for this proposal.  Risker (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The original parties will please be notified of this amendment request. Steven, you will need to explain in what ways the final decision of Abortion is inadequate; at this point, I have no view. AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is still not clear to me how the current remedies are inadequate, and why a resolution cannot be achieved by simply fulfilling the uncreated discussion provided for by the original decision. AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anthony Appleyard, In the case of both the proposed "binding RFC" and "systematic discussion and voting", I am not sure that such is the case. Under both paradigms, the decision about content is remanded to the wider community, and only the final decision is remanded to a small group of neutral users. My take is that the core of both methods is that the decision on disputed content is remanded to the wider community. AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve, I do not see how you reconcile your acknowledgement that our small committee has an enormous workload with your vociferous criticism of our (hardly unacceptable) response time. In any case, my view is that we should proceed by implementing the original decision by starting the "systematic discussion and voting". If you are interested, you could start it yourself. As a rule, this committee looks to the community to implement its remedies, and it strikes me that it is silly to look at an amended decision when the original remedy has not even been implemented. AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was unsure whether this needed a specific name or process that required an amendment as such, and would be content to have some three-admin closure of an extended discussion, if someone actually had an interest in chairing it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on this one. I can see Steven Zhang's point, but I'd also like to see the remedy proceed as Cas articulated... just to see if it works as designed. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The binding RFC idea is interesting, and as individual members of the community it would be appropriate for us to join the discussion and give our support if so inclined. Should we as a body support or oppose the idea? I don't think that would be appropriate while there's a community discussion in place. In addition, we are being asked to vacate a valid remedy with one that does not yet exist. If Binding RFCs gets consensus, I can see it being proposed in future cases, and at that point it would be fully appropriate for ArbCom to consider using it - but this is too soon.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, apologies for not posting earlier. Overall, my view is that the subtly different version proposed my Steven is just as good. That is, if the case was still open, I'd give his variation equal support. However, given the case is closed, I feel there needs to be more of a necessity to use his version, and, at the moment, I don't see there is any such necessity. Otherwise, I would suggest the process should start in the near future, and if Steven is willing to lead this process, that would be most appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't an arb then, but if I had been, I would have recused from the Abortion case, so I'll just indicate that now. Courcelles 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abortion (February 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! at 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement by Steven Zhang
This is more a clarification on remedy 4.1 of this case. It might seem relatively obvious what the answer to my question is, but the remedy states: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all articles related to abortion, broadly construed." I compare this with the closure of the Muhammad images case, where the sanction states: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted."

I was reading over the final decision for the Muhammad case today, in particular the remedy on deciding what to do regarding the images, and noticed this sentence: "Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision".

Now, as the committee is well aware, a structured discussion on the Abortion article titles (see remedy) has been set up. So, I suppose my question is rather simple. Will administrators have the authority to ban users from the discussion in events of disruption under the discretionary sanctions as noted in the Abortion case? It would seem logical to me, but the committee may feel differently. I haven't notified the parties of the case (I feel it's a simple clarification for mainly my benefit) but am happy to do so if required. Steven  Zhang  Join the DR army! 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @ArbCom, I am probably being a bit pedantic here, but from readings of past cases, the scope of where discretionary sanctions and topic bans apply are normally clearly defined, for example in the Prem Rawat case ("related articles and their talk page"), Tree shaping ("The topic covered by the article currently located at...") and the Muhammad case (linked above) are a few examples. I personally don't mind, but it might be better to be explicit as to the scope of discretionary sanctions in this situation?  Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 00:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens, I was probably being just a bit anal about my reading of it, perhaps that's how I picked up on it. But knowing the climate of topics like these, I figured it's best to be explicit just in case we have any wikilawyering over the remedy in future ("the remedy says articles only, not X areas") @Roger, sounds good. I'll keep my eye on this page. Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 19:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Whenaxis
Greetings Arbitration Committee. I, too, would like to clarify if administrators will have the authority to ban users from the discussion when disruptive editing occurs. I think the Arbitration Committee should provide this authority to administrators because any uncivil comment can detract from the productivity of the community discussion. At this time, the remedy encompasses articles relating to Abortion, as suggested by Steven above, I think it should encompass the discussion and all pages relating to Abortion. Thanks,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs  21:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
 * Moved per NW's request and redacted to make sense. As you'll see at AC/DS, this is a "problem" (not really) for more than just this case. They can really be fixed by a simple copy edit though, as DS have been applied to all pages in a topic area since forever.  NW  ( Talk ) 13:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Seems like a fairly common-sense thing to do to me, but I'm still recused on this one. Courcelles 22:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the admins can apply blocks or bans as needed to editors if they disrupt the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as discretionary sanctions that apply to articles also apply to the talk page, so too does the Abortion discretionary provision apply to community discussion related to the article. AGK  [•] 00:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If my colleagues are minded to explicitly resolve that we consider RFCs to be within the scope of discretionary sanctions for the associated article, then I would be happy to support or propose a motion to that effect. However, in my view the scope is self-evident, and the opinions given in this clarification are sufficient as confirmation. AGK  [•] 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, especially as disruptive talkpage editing was a feature of the problems leading to the case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions were fully intended to apply to the discussions prompted by the remedy passed in this case. My apologies if the wording didn't make that sufficiently clear. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To avoid doubt I would support changing it to read "for all pages related to abortion".  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, Steve. Yes, it seems to be a slip rather an intention and this has been confirmed by Jclemens above. As we seem to be unanimous, best is probably to handle this as a copy-edit instead of by formal motion, and I will do so in twelve or so hours time (unless anyone objects, of course).  Roger Davies  talk 10:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made the copy-edit now so this request can be archived. Thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion (March 2012)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by  v/r - TP at 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Haymaker notified

Statement by TParis
On Feb 24, 2012 (Yesterday), I blocked User:Haymaker for violating the topic ban in relation to this case. The specific edits are and. The user has since appealed the block with the rational that "I commented in the continuation of an arbitration committee discussion". I am convinced that this user did not intend to violate the topic ban, but would appreciate clarification on whether the discussion at Requests_for_comment/Abortion_article_titles is or is not a continuation of the Arbcom discussion per remedy 5.1 of the Arbcom case and whether or not this violates the topic ban.--v/r - TP 18:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and unblocked. I was on the verge of doing so before opening this and the comments below and by AGK and PhilKnight have convinced me that it was the right thing to do.  I'd still appreciate clarification on the above question for Haymaker's sake.--v/r - TP 03:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Whenaxis
I have since removed the notification for the following users that I notified that have been topic banned:Michael C Price and Haymaker. I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused. I think that the user should be unblocked because it was mainly my actions that led to this user being blocked, especially because the user thought it was an addition to the arbitration discussion. Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  21:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang
I think that in this situation, it's quite possible that Haymaker wouldn't have made comment if they hadn't been invited to the discussion. This does appear to be a bit of an oversight on the part of Whenaxis, but it still technically was a violation of Haymaker's topic ban. I think time served would be appropriate in this situation. Steven  Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 22:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Haymaker
Dear all, thank you so much for your consideration in this matter. If I ever find myself in a similar situation in the future I will seek clarification here. - 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Haymaker was topic-banned from the Abortion articles, and related pages, because he has "edited disruptively in topics related to abortion". Although I see he was given an automated invite on his talk page to participate in the discussion, such an invite should never have been made (and tangentially, is a source of concern to me). The invite cannot reasonably be interpreted by the appellant to mean his topic-ban does not apply, and he ought to have known that. In my view, you would be justified to use your discretion to unblock if Haymaker recognises that his topic-ban may not be ignored even if he is invited to a discussion. However, the block was sound, because topic-bans also apply to the community discussion established by R5.1 (and, if anything, must especially apply to that discussion). AGK  [•] 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic ban does apply, however the mistake by Haymaker was entirely understandable. Given that Haymaker in his unblock request has apologized, I think the most appropriate course of action would be to unblock him. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This appears to be resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this can be filed at any time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification requested on ARBPIA 1RR restriction (March 2012)

 * Original discussion

The restriction is worded thusly: "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty." I've just unblocked a user who was blocked for violating these sanctions. Their argument was that they received a big fat notice on their talk page that contained this wording from the decision, and that they therefore believed they could revert IP users without penalty. I assumed the notice was misrepresenting the decision, but that is in fact exactly what it says. I'm a bit confused by this, it seems to suggest that any and all IP edits on articles covered by this sanction can be treated as vandalism. Am I missing something here? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is the intention, that any edit by an IP to any of these articles can be reverted on sight and they are not subject to the 1RR restriction, shouldn't we just semi-protect the whole lot of them? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I happened to have Beeblebrox's talk page on my watch list. I think the intended meaning of "without penalty" was "not subject to this (1RR) restriction". The wording should probably be changed to avoid misunderstanding and/or wikilawyering in the future. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we broaden this to 1RRs generally? If I'm talking out of my arse here (wrt the WP:TROUBLES arbitration case), I'd appreciate being told so (and why). HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think some better wording is in order, for example: "Reversions of clear vandalism, or reversions of edits by anonymous IP editors, are not subject to the 1R Restriction. "-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by EdJohnston
It seems harmless to make the change in wording recommended by Sphilbrick, but I don't think it is necessary. The ARBPIA template already reads like this: "'Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors, and edits which are clearly vandalism.'" I find it hard to tell the difference between that and Sphilbrick's version:"'Reversions of clear vandalism, or reversions of edits by anonymous IP editors, are not subject to the 1R Restriction.'" It goes without saying that IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason and that the WP:EW policy still applies. For background, the exemption that allows reverting IP edits seems to come from a proposal by T. Canens in November 2010, which got included in the result of the discussion at WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. From there it made its way into the wording of the ARBPIA template, and then got added as a community supplement to the WP:ARBPIA decision. The sentence in WP:ARBPIA was tweaked by PhilKnight in January 2011 to agree with the language in the ARBPIA template. 1RR rules which exempt IP edits are not common, and it is logical that they might create some confusion. The special 1RR rules that exempt IP edits still appear to serve a purpose in the most contentious areas. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it should go without saying that "IP edits should only be reverted for a good reason" but I think the issue arose because someone read "Certain edits may be reverted without penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..." and thought it meant, literally, that IP edits could be reverted without penalty, instead of "Certain edits may be reverted without [incurring a 1RR] penalty. These include edits made by anonymous IP editors..."
 * My proposed edit makes explicit, what was implicitly true, but missed.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also support the point made by AGK; the proposed edit is not a change to the restriction, but a wording change to make clear the original intention, which is unchanged.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by The Devil's Advocate
On a purely cosmetic point, in the motion below saying "reverts of edits made by IP editors that are not clear vandalism" are still covered by edit-warring policy is a tad redundant. Edit-warring policy also provides an explicit exemption for reverting vandalism. Rather, I think after noting reverts of IP editors are not subject to 1RR the subsequent statement need only say that the usual edit-warring policy still applies.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Gatoclass
The 1RR exemption for IPs was intended as a discouragement to sockpuppetry. I am concerned that making reverts of IPs "subject to the usual rules on edit warring" will expose established accounts to the fiat of admins who not infrequently decide to hand out bans in contentious topic areas for perceived "edit warring" even when 3RR has not been violated. This is likely to make it difficult for established accounts to discourage sockpuppetry as intended as they will have to be looking over their own shoulder when reverting IPs. I suggest therefore that the phrase "subject to 3RR" be substituted for "subject to the usual rules on edit warring". This should help ensure that established editors retain a useful advantage over IPs without being accused of edit warring when doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On reflection, and given Elen's comments below, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be simpler just to make reverts of IPs literally without penalty, ie they can be reverted as often as necessary. It would strongly discourage sockpuppetry but wouldn't completely prevent IPs from adding useful content, as semi-protection would do. Gatoclass (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion
Moved from WP:ACN as this is the right venue. Courcelles 20:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the way the remedy is worded, the 1RR does not apply to reverting IP's, but usual rules on edit warring and 3RR do. Courcelles 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I"m not saying this is right, I'm still thinking on that one, just expressing that how I read the current remedy.(And I'd hope and expect people are not using this language to revert IP edits without good reason.) Courcelles 22:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the proposed copyedit. Courcelles 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Courcelles, reverting IPs is still subject to 3RR, and for that matter our usual rules on edit warring. I'm ok with the change suggested by Sphilbrick, which could, as HJMitchell suggests, be extended to The Troubles as well. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sphilbrick's proposed copyedit.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I interpret the current wording to have the same meaning as that of Sphilbrick's proposed change. However, I can see why there can be a different interpretation of the current wording, and to resolve the discrepancy I propose we copy-edit the sanction wording as recommended (unless there are objections in the next few days). If there is a pending enforcement request that relates to this sanction, I recommend it be placed on hold, but in any event it must be dismissed: an ex post facto application of the sanction would be unfair. AGK  [•] 15:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was recused on the underlying case so have no vote here, but agree that as a matter of general principle and as part of our goal of standardizing remedies to the extent possible, the remedy here should be copyedited, and/or updated to reflect current practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Sphilbrick's proposed tweak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Motion

 * Enacted at 18:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The text in WP:ARBPIA section "Further remedies" is modified from "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty" to "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." As identical text is used in an active sanction related to The Troubles case, the same substitution of wording shall be made there.

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


 * Support
 * Feel free to copyedit, but this has been sitting here too long for a mainly cosmetic change. Courcelles 20:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (We may require some notifications about the amendment to The Troubles sanction - for example on the talk pages of popular, related articles - if our foresighted change is not to take the editors completely by surprise.) AGK  [•] 23:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  01:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Kirill [talk] [prof] 03:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've historically recused on most parts of the Palestine-Israel case, but this motion pertains equally to The Troubles where I am active, and its really just a copyediting clarification (that has already passed anyway), so I will go ahead and vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but I wonder whether this could not be more simply, clearly and emphatically expressed as "Unless the reversion is solely to remove clear vandalism, all reversions are subject to the One Revert Restriction". (Sorry to be a Johnny-come-lately on this.) I'll circulate this on the list and see if there's any traction,   Roger Davies  talk 16:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I explained on-list, that would change the substantive issues of the sanction, which this motion explicitly does not do. That kind of change would require a fresh motion, as it would make reverting IP edits count in the 1RR, which they do not do at present. Courcelles 18:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Thanks for clarifying it though, absent context, we're still left with an ambiguity in the first sentence (which Phil's "made" doesn't really fix). Sorry to suggest a recast but it's probably clearer to separate the vandalism and the IP edits entirely, as two sentences, thus: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring." And the "of whatever origin" is probably unnecessary.  Roger Davies  talk 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea, so copyedited. Anyone, feel free to revert if you disagree. Courcelles 20:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * The only reason this is in there is the fear that five IP editors are actually just one editor. If they were five editors, then there would be no reason to assume that. But whenever you put "IP editor" and "vandal" in the same sentence, the community comes away with the impression that IP editors are all vandals and can be reverted on sight. I would prefer something like the wording below, and will propose it as an alternative if there is any traction

In an area subject to IRR restrictions - Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors are restricted to making one revert only per day - this applies to all accounts and IP addresses of that editor
 * There are no restrictions on the number of times vandalism may be reverted
 * Any IP editor is restricted to IRR in the same way as other editors
 * Where multiple IPs edit the article in a similar manner, they can be treated as if they are all one person and, if they persist in making the same edits or reversions, then other editors may revert them without penalty.


 * Abstain;


 * Comments
 * Note to Clerk: Even though the motion as proposed is passing, please don't close this just yet, given the discussion of possible copyedits or alternatives. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence (March 2012)

 * Original discussion

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


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)

 
 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

 * That Mathsci is banned from interacting with or mentioning me and Captain Occam anywhere on Wikipedia.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
Despite my having had no interaction with him in many months, is continuing to bring me up on Wikipedia in inappropriate situations after being asked multiple times by arbitrators to stop. Arbcom has requested that Mathsci drop this issue at least four times:


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

New examples

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

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

Update 1/22
Risker's comment makes me a little more hopeful that this thread might finally be receiving some attention from Arbcom. There's one other new issue that I'm hoping Arbcom will resolve: whether editors should be allowed to bring up off-wiki personal information about others in public, rather than sending it privately to Arbcom. Based on my understanding of policy and my discussions on this with Jclemens, I don't think doing this is ok. But in this thread Edjohnston (the admin who usually handles R&I related AE reports) was unconvinced that off-wiki personal information can't be handled in public at AE, and that if Arbcom disagrees they should take some formal action in this amendment thread.

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


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

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

@Mathsci: Mathsci has stated last night "Ferahgo seems to be doing very little else on wikipedia except for militating against me". Since I opened this thread on January 8, I have made 59 edits to this thread, AE, or admin/arbs' talk pages related to the conflict, and I've made over 140 edits to paleo articles and talk pages. Mathsci's other falsehoods about me in this thread can be explained by paranoia or truth-bending, but there is no explanation for this that I can see besides deliberate dishonesty. As usual, Mathsci has made so many claims about me in this thread that there isn't space to respond to them all. But it should be a strong hint about his statement here that he's willing to lie about something so obvious to make me look bad. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC) The "spurt" is irrelevant; the statement you made was not true when you made it. Please look over my contributions from the last few weeks if you are confused.

I'm at a loss what to do here. Daily Mathsci is continuing to add more misrepresentations about me, but my statement is already long enough. His claim here that I've committed a copyvio on the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article that I'm writing is just the newest example. If Mathsci has been watching my contributions this closely, he must also have known the tag was applied in error and the content restored, as discussed here. I would like it if Arbcom could please offer some guidance on how I should handle his tactic of simply posting more claims about me than it's possible to respond to within the space allowed. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Comments on WP:SHARE
My understanding of WP:SHARE was that it works a lot like WP:COI. Editors with a conflict of interest need to be careful to avoid the appearance of advocacy, and editors who share an IP address with someone else also need to be careful they don't appear to be working together to push a POV or circumvent policies like 3RR (hence the policy that closely-related accounts observe 3RR as though they were a single user). But, I think, WP:COI and WP:SHARE aren't sanctionable offenses by themselves. The Timidguy ban appeal case stated that attempting to prove someone has a COI isn't a justification for harassment or outing, and that should apply here as well.

I think this situation is similar to Timidguy's in general. Everyone knew that Timidguy had a COI, but there was very little evidence of disruption from him besides the COI itself. In my case the connection between my account and Occam's is well-known, but I have avoided the misbehavior that's led to him being blocked and sanctioned. I've never at any point been a single-purpose account, and the only time I've ever been blocked was once in November 2010 for accidentally violating my topic ban on an article I didn't realize that it covered. Occam, by contrast, has been blocked multiple times for edit warring and battleground attitude. If Arbcom could look beyond both of our efforts to deal with Mathsci's harassment, they would also see that there's been very little overlap between the articles that Occam and I edit. Our accounts might be indistinguishable technically, but behavior should count for more than technical evidence.

The purpose of blocks and sanctions is to prevent harm to the project, but my involvement in Wikipedia aside from this request is devoted entirely to making constructive edits to paleontology and evolution articles. I don't think banning me from Wikipedia on the basis of a technical connection would be consistent with the purpose bans are meant to serve, just as it wouldn't be okay to ban someone only because they have a COI. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to NY Brad
I tried to explain this in my initial statement, but here's a more concise summary:

1. Mathsci has a long history of battleground behavior against me, especially conducting off-wiki research about me and posting his conclusions in public, even though he knows that off-wiki evidence can only be sent to Arbcom in private. Many examples of this before and during this thread are available. I don't like being treated this way, but there is nothing I can do to make it stop. It continues even when I leave him alone for months, and when I've suggested that we both agree to leave each other alone (on January 7th) he refused.

2. Arbcom has asked Mathsci to drop this issue at least three times, most recently in September. The only reason he wasn't given an interaction ban then was because Cool Hand Luke was confident a warning would be enough to change his behavior. In addition to that, he was formally warned by Jclemens in December that he would be sanctioned if he continued to post off-wiki information about other editors in public. None of these warnings have been enough to stop this behavior. Therefore, a formal interaction ban is the only feasible way I can see to stop this problem in a long-term sense. When an editor refuses to stop a certain behavior after being warned by Arbcom to stop multiple times, normally that means Arbcom will formally restrict them from continuing it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New case?
I agree with Elen of the Roads' suggestion that Arbcom review everyone's editing privately rather than opening a new case. Already in this thread nobody has been enforcing the rule that off-wiki evidence needs to be sent to Arbcom privately instead of being posted in public. Mathsci and a few others have been publicly posting off-wiki information about me in this thread for almost two months, and opening a new case would likely keep that going. I think if Arbcom reviews everyone's editing privately (including looking for socks), they should have enough information to make a decision. Arbcom should consider whether the additional information they could get by opening a full case is worth the additional drama, and spread of non-public information, that it would inevitably cause. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


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

I still think the best idea here is the one proposed by Elen of the Roads: that Arbcom should review everyone's editing privately. I think a review is only okay if it covers the points I mentioned above. It should have a strict rule about not posting off-wiki evidence in public, it should examine the behavior of the editors other than Mathsci who've also been doing that, and it should implement a principle or remedy to prevent this continuing in the future. On the question of whether I should be site-banned, it also needs to examine all of my own editing, not just one part of it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any point in opening a case or review focused just on myself, Occam and Mathsci when according to his comment here Mathsci wants to be blocked? It means either he'll be a participant against his will, or (if he's given the self-requested block) I'll be the only involved party who isn't blocked. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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

1. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?

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

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

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

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

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

This is just the start of my analysis of her edits. All her edits and those of Captain Occam are likely to be examined in this way, since she has spent 2 months editing/lobbying as a proxy for Captain Occam in what appears to have been a relentless attack on me. Mathsci (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First 8 edits 2008-2009
 * 9th edit in support of Captain Occam in November 2009 without declaring WP:SHARE.
 * 10th edit in support of Captain Occam in November 2009 without declaring WP:SHARE.
 * 13th edit on wikipedia: In support of Occam concerning me; mentions  Mathsci 
 * 14th edit on wikipedia: votes against a topic ban on Captain Occam without declaring who she is. mentions  Mathsci 
 * 15th edit, supporting Captain Occam
 * 16th edit, supporting Captain Occam mentions  Mathsci 
 * 17th edit, supporting Captain Occam mentions  Mathsci 
 * 18th edit, supporting Captain Occam mentions  Mathsci 
 * 19th edit, supporting Captain Occam
 * 20th edit, supporting Captain Occam votes to ban  Mathsci  from WP:ANI (tag teaming with Mikemikev, Captain Occam and, a sockpuppet of banned user )


 * Mikemikev has once again used his account at Imperial College London to disrupt wikipedia in a way that beggars belief. While searching for details of Steven Rubenstein's editorial positions, I discovered this recent external posting by Mikemikev. He then added the same thing to the wikipedia article twice. Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Volunteer Marek
I didn't pay attention to the Abortion case so I don't know anything about that. But what is the relevance of these two statements of FtA's?:
 * November & December: Mathsci attempts to prove Boothello (talk · contribs) is a sock of David.Kane (talk · contribs), based on off-wiki research about where David.Kane lives, another example of Mathsci conducting off-wiki sleuthing about editors connected to R&I.
 * What does this have to do with Cpt. Occam specifically? It seems like just a complaint that Mathsci is "interfering" with SPAs who push a POV on Race and Intelligence article that was previously supported by Cpt. Occam and FtA. And this is a topic area that has a long history of disruptive SPA and/or sock puppeting. BTW, Boothello WAS topic banned from R&I recently for a mixture of "probable sock puppet of David Kane per duck" and "even if not, being a disruptive tendentious SPA".


 * : This time it was to threaten an editor for what looks like a very brief involvement in editing the human intelligence template. Here Mathsci is making real-life, off-wiki claims about me in an attempt to threaten TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs)
 * Again, what does this have to do with Cpt. Occam and FtA aside from the fact that FtA appears to be annoyed that her off-wiki friends' connections to her and the Captain - i.e. meatpuppets - are pointed out by Mathsci? There'd be no need for any kind of sleuthing if FtA and CO didn't keep recruiting off-wiki buddies in order to what looks like, an intentional circumvention of their topic bans. This wouldn't be that problematic, except that it's FtA who brought this amendment up and cited this for support. Having meat puppets is one thing, requesting that somebody be sanctioned "cuz they pickin' on my meat puppets" is another.

Volunteer Marek 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Comment on motion by Volunteer Marek

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

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

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

Response to Phil

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

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

Response to Elen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Roger Davis

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

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

Suggestion

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

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

Response to Aprock

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

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

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I would urge the committee to take this issue seriously -- not the request for amendment, which is frivolous in that it seeks to amend something which does not exist -- but the issue of Captain Occam and his continuing disruption of Wikipedia through proxies, notably FtA. CO's site ban should be extended to any editor who acts as his meatpuppet. Without such an action, the ban becomes a farce, allowing CO virtual access to the site at will. The project will not suffer from the loss of these editors, who contribute little. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that Vercrumba talks about Mathsci going into "attack mode" when it was Ferahgo the Assasin who raised this issue. Can ArbCom do nothing to shut down Captain Occam's proxies?  Do you intend to allow him to continue to make fools of you, circumventing your rulings by utilizing his girlfriend and other proxies?  For pete's sake, he's spitting in your face and laughing at you.  Show some cojones, please shut down this disruptive editor for good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC) (Part struck as needlessly incendiary and disrespectful.  My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Could I suggest that a clerk please remove the comment below by The Wozbongulator, who has been indef blocked as a sock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In a recent addendum to her statement, FtA complains about seeing the "exact same group" of editors speaking in opposition to her, and named Professor Marginalia, Mathsci, Hipocrite, Aprock, myself, and Enric Naval. The crux here, however, is that these editors came here on their own, as independent actors, with no on- or off-wiki coordination, while the relevant charge, which negates FtA's request for amendment, is that FtA and others are acting as meatpuppets for the banned Captain Occam, and therefore should be subject to the same editing restrictions as CO is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned that the motion presented to the Committee totally misconstrues the import of this situation. An interaction ban would certainly provide FtA with the muzzle on Mathsci she was looking for, but it does so with very negative consequences for the project, because it removes from the scene one of the primary deterrents to the ongoing meatpuppetry of CO, which is, in point of fact, the problem which needs to be solved. The fact that this unwarranted Request for Amendment sat here for so long with little attention given to it while the Committee was dealing with a number of very complex and time-consuming arbitrations leads me to believe that perhaps there is now something of a rush to clear the decks and get pending matters out of the way, and that this has lead to a fundamental misreading of what's important here. I strongly suggest that the Committee dig a little bit deeper into this, because it's not a run-of-the-mill dispute between two editors which can be solved with an interaction ban, it's actually a ongoing slow-motion attack on the principles under which we operate -- in particular, NPOV -- by a group of concerted civil POV-pushers. That is, in my estimation, an extremely serious problem which needs to be addressed, and I am distressed that the motion presented to the Committee does not address it, instead approaching the case in a very superficial way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Elen - There is no "personal attack" in characterizing FtA as a meatpuppet of CO, since the Committee has already determined her status by extending CO's topic ban to her. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba
I regret to observe that Mathsci thrives on going into attack mode. When I first became interested in R&I on-Wiki, Mathsci set upon me in no uncertain terms and brought up completely unrelated events in a blatant character assassination attempt. I can go back to provide diffs, this was quite a while ago, but the acrimony exhibited toward me at that time disposes me to believe Mathsci has serious ownership and self-superiority issues that no administrative action will ever solve. When an editor sets upon another, that is not frivolous, and whatever one thinks apart from the attack is immaterial to the attack itself (e.g., the object of the attack is a criminal and deserve what they get). If you ever want WP be a kinder gentler place, start with the attackers not their victims. Whether or not you approve of the victim is not material to the complaint here. If you think it is material, you're part of the self-righteous poison permeating WP. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To some of the other comments, in my dealings with Mathsci, my issue has not been his content but his incessantly combative attitude including scurrilous personal attacks based on a presumption that anyone disagreeing to any degree is an enemy to be vanquished, not to mention seeing conspiracies at every turn. No amount of positive content justifies the rest of us putting up with that sort of crap. If we want to attract new, enthusiastic, collegial editors to WP, then Mathsci's attitude has to go. If he can't divorce himself from his attitude, well, then... VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

I agree Mathsci's tone in remarks in disputes like this can sometimes seem provocative, but they have resulted in far less disruption in these articles than the obsequiousness adopted by topic banned Captain Occam and his proxies. Mathsci's been an unqualified benefit when it comes to identifying proxies. It seems to me that if Captain Occam-who is topic banned-and his recruits (1st generation, 2nd generation et al)-would move on and quit trying to game these articles, then wikipedia wins. By the same token, it seems to me that if Mathsci is sanctioned such that he cannot lend help with the proxy problem, then wikipedia loses. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ferahgo-I suggest you refocus all your complaints about our behaviors in R/I to concentrate instead on whatever's bothering you about us that may be occurring outside the R/I involved articles. You're topic banned from R/I.   Professor marginalia (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

The proposed ammendment is the most disingenuous thing I have ever seen. Ferrahgo is upset that MathSci is vigelant in enforcing ArbCom decisions. If Ferrahgo ever thinks that MathSci is overzealous or wrong, she should deal with it the wikiway, through discussion. Beyond this, it is just ludicrous to topic-ban one of the best editors we have in the sense that this editor has spent considerable time researching the scholarship on race and intelligence and adding neutral and encyclopdic content. Mathsci is not the only editor ho has added much important content, but if we were to remove the content she has added it would significantly degrade the quality of a number of articles. This is not the editor who should be topic-banned. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ferahgo the Assassin &mdash; so you have now added me to your list of co-conspirators against you. So what?  I am sure that the members of ArbCom are familiar with a pattern that is pervasive at Wikipedia.  Our articles fall into roughly three groups.  First, articles on hot topics, like Justin Bieber and Barack Obama which may or may not be contentious, but which attract such a large number of editors all of whom have access to reliable sources, that sifferent points of view cancel one another out, or editors are able to work out compromises, and we end up with fairly detailed articles that actually comply with NPOV.  Second, articles on obscure and uncontroversial topics like Emile Durkheim that, sadly for an encyclopedia, attract a very small number of editors.  If we are luckly one or two of them actually know more than what one might have learned in an undergraduate sociology course or cribbed from other encyclopedias. The result is a highly stable, but also pretty superficial, article.


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


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


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

Comment on Motion by Aprock
I'm confused as to what problem this motion is supposed to solve. Could one of the nominators explain how such a broad interaction ban helps the project instead of hurting it. From the best I can tell the pros and cons look something like: Given the degree to which this topic area is besieged by disruptive editors (12+1 new editors warned since case close 10 months ago), an implicit invitation for more disruptive editors seems counterproductive. aprock (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * pro: Ferahgo is no longer bothered by Mathsci's investigations into issues of meat puppetry and off wiki harassment by her and others.
 * con: Ferahgo and her clique of off-wiki associates can now recruit disruptive editors more freely.

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


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

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


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

Comment by Acadēmica Orientālis/Miradre
I am not sure what Ferahgo the Assassin aims to achieve with this amendment? Ultimately a lifting of the topic ban? If so, then this is most likely pointless. The there-are-no-genetic-differences editor group has complete control of the topic area and will most likely continue to have this. In principle all editors presenting other views have been removed. In many cases the offenses seem rather mild but where the moralistic fallacy and emotional revulsion cause disproportionate and unequal responses. This is of course a mirror of the larger poisonous atmosphere in this area where even a Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA like James D. Watson can be fired for saying the not politically correct thing in this area. When this can happen to such a prominent person then a lesser one of course has no chance. So if the aim is to ultimately add more views to the area under the topic ban, then my advise is to just avoid this area. If on the other hand the purpose is to stop general harassment by Mathsci I can certainly sympathize. I have myself experience of how Mathsci can become fixated by someone he seems to dislike and of how he earlier started following me around Wikipedia to oppose me on articles and topics not related to race and intelligence, started creating complaints on many different noticeboards, and started attempting many outings. (Disclaimer: I of course respect the talk page consensus and Wikipedia policies on all race and intelligence articles and in fact I have no intention to now or in the future edit the core articles in this area except making some occasional talk page comments. My editing is now and will in the future be in other areas.) Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Maunus. I have not used any other account except Miradre/Acadēmica Orientālis for years which is what I have stated earlier. If you wish to accuse me of sockpuppetry, then please start a WP:RFCU. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Maunus. Metapedia? No, people disagreeing with the there-are-genetic-group-differences-in-IQ view do not have to be extremist right-wing white supremacists. Like James D. Watson, Bruce Lahn, Gregory Cochran, and so on. That attack is the easy ad hominem way to dismiss factual arguments. You are still insinuating that I am using sockpuppets so please start a WP:RFCU if you have any evidence. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Maunus. I am not aware or member of any conspiracy or cabal and have no private communication with anyone regarding the subject area. On the other hand, there-are-no-genetic-differences editor group always quickly turn out to support one another in votes, talk page discussions, arbitration enforcements, noticeboards, and so on. This group has successfully banned almost everyone opposing them and has complete control of the articles which as a result has little  resemblance to the scientific literature and ongoing scientific discussion in this area. That you declare your own non-hereditarian POV to be the "mainstream" demonstrates the state of affairs quire nicely. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Maunus. No, the hereditarian view, or more correctly the partly-hereditarian view, is not the mainstream view. Neither is it fringe a view. There is an ongoing, unresolved scientific debate in this area. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Maunus: Regarding the usual ad hominem attack against the partially-hereditarian researchers I will just note that many are not connected to the Pioneer Fund in any way. Like Bruce Lahn, Gregory Cochran, Henry Harpending, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray and many others. Many American anthropologists reject that races exist at all but the situation is different for non-US anthropologists and also for American anthropologists such as forensic anthropologists which successfully identify race in their daily work. There is no consensus among psychologists or geneticists on the R&I issue. I have recently on the talk page of the R&I article mentioned two recent peer-reviewed review articles regarding the views among geneticists which state that the issue is currently unresolved and that have long discussions regarding what to do when in the near future what may be definitive genetic evidence turns up and support the partially-hereditarian position. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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


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


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


 * @Miradre/Academica Orientalis: I was of course referring to this statement, in which you state that you started ther Miradre account specifically because you didn't want you main account associated with the edits you do in the R&I area.I don't think you are socking, but on the other hand it is odd that so many accounts feel the need to dedicate most of their editing time to turning this particular area of wikipedia into a mirror of Metapedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Miradre: What part of "I don't think you are socking" is it that you interpret as an insinuation that you are socking? I think that there is reason to believe that there is off-line recruitment to edit these pages in a way that is not compliant with wikipedias policies, and in ways that are not simply making sure that the dissident voices are heard, but rather a case of systematically misrepresenting the relative weight of those viewpoints, systematically bloating the relative presence of hereditarian positions relative to mainstream positions in the articles, and to do so through disruptive strategies that use repetitive argumentation (IDIDNTHEARTHAT), through cherry picking and tendentious use of evidence wit the intended effect of causing attrition of opposing viewpoints over time. I don't know if you are involved in online recruitment, but I am pretty sure someone is. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @having discussed this to death with you before this is going to be my last statement on this issue in which I maintain that when you survey the literature you are viewing the literature from a peculiar vantage point if you think it gives more credence to the hereditarian viewpoint than WP does currently. Also I would note that it seems incongruent that proponents of the hereditarian viewpoint can simultaneously occupy a stance in which it is mainstream and one in which it is the oppressed minority.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Miradre. (going back on my promise of course) an ongoing dispute like the climate controversy yes - where a small group with ample funding and political agendas are taking on the established consensus in three academic disciplines (the validity of Race as a biological construct may in some sense be claimed to be "an ongoing debate" though even that is questionable, R&I really isn't). ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

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


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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Under the provisions of the final decision (as amended), could this matter not be referred as normal to the Arbitration Enforcement process? It seems to me that the interaction ban, if warranted, could be made as a discretionary sanction. Such a method of proceeding seems to me far preferable to any direct action by this Committee, which by its nature would probably be protracted and unpleasant. AGK   [</nowikI>• ]  22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, I'm not sure your responses here are consistent with WP:SHARE. Would you mind re-responding to the concerns only with respect to Ferahgo? We're not here to re-hear Occam's case, I trust both parties understand. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be interested to see what others more experienced in this case have to say, though my initial feeling is that concerns about harassment might be better dealt with via RfC. The community can deal with harassment and potential outing matters, blocking if appropriate.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  00:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm recusing on this one as I recused on the original case and also am the administrator who most recently blocked Captain Occam. Risker (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sincere apologies for the delay in responding. This has been discussed on the arb mailing list, and based on that discussion, I think an interaction ban between Ferahgo and Mathsci is a viable solution to at least part of this problem. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To push things forward, do you want to propose a motion to that effect? AGK  [•] 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved to the subsection right below, per Roger Davies' request.  NW  ( Talk ) 19:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


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

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


 * Support:
 * PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks to Volunteer Marek and Aprock for their replies. Striking my vote as it would appear the issues are too complex to be handled by a motion. Or in other words, I'm beginning to think a full case is necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Striking. Jclemens (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * 1) Not the best way forward here. I'd support opening a new case to look into the topic area. Courcelles 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Abstain:
 * Recuse:
 * Comments by arbitrators:
 * Commenting for the moment, although likely to oppose - this is much wider than two editors, and an interaction ban will not even begin to address the main issues of two entrenched camps, and the estimated likelihood that Feragho is a meatpuppet and everyone else is socks. If the committee and others believe that Feragho edits in accordance with Occam's instructions, then ban her. If they believe she does not, then continually alleging it is a personal attack and should result in a sanction for the editor(s) persistently making that allegation. Simply interaction-banning Feragho and one of the editors who says it isn't going to get us much further. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, what do you think is needed here? Should we open a full case? PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that one group of editors believes that Feragho types what Occam tells her, and that most of the other editors are socks. That's what needs addressing. If it requires a full case, then it requires a case, but I would have thought that reviewing the Wikipedia space contributions of Occam and Ferahgo (Arbcom can review things for themselves we have recently established - they don't need a bunch of editors presenting conflicting denouncements) plus a thorough SPI and review of previous SPIs (to see how serious the hosiery problem really is) would be a better place to start.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, what do you think is needed here? Should we open a full case? PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that one group of editors believes that Feragho types what Occam tells her, and that most of the other editors are socks. That's what needs addressing. If it requires a full case, then it requires a case, but I would have thought that reviewing the Wikipedia space contributions of Occam and Ferahgo (Arbcom can review things for themselves we have recently established - they don't need a bunch of editors presenting conflicting denouncements) plus a thorough SPI and review of previous SPIs (to see how serious the hosiery problem really is) would be a better place to start.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The wording also needs amending - the net effect of using one long sentence instead of three short ones is to create a wikilawyer's paradise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you think you can improve the motion by a copyedit - even if you're not going to support it - then, I suggest you go ahead. PhilKnight (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I think it's likely to garner any support, I will. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Before I vote, I'd like to inquire what is the basis for the proposer's conclusion that Mathsci should be restricted. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I share that concern. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Motion: To open and conduct a Review
The Committee will conduct a Review focusing on matters broadly arising from the Race and Intelligence case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following points: Procedure: The Review will be a simplified form of a full case, the named parties being User:Mathsci; User:Ferahgo the Assassin and User:Captain Occam. Any editor may give evidence providing their evidence is directly relevant to the numbered points above; is supported where appropriate with diffs; and complies with the usual evidence length requirements. Captain Occam is expected to submit his evidence, should he wish to give any, by email, to the Committee. The evidence phase lasts for ten days and will be followed by a decision on the substantive issues by motion. No workshop will be held, though relevant comments may be made on the /Review talk page.
 * 1) Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
 * 2) Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
 * 3) Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
 * 4) Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
 * 5) Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

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


 * Support:
 * We have not held a review for a while but it seems the best compromise between a sprawling amendment/motion and a full case. (Examples: here and here.)  Roger Davies  talk 12:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On balance, I'd prefer opening a full case, however I'm ok with this approach. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am distinctly uncomfortable with resolving such a complicated issue by motion, because it risks sloppy decision-making. I therefore support a full review (if it complies with the Procedure provision of this motion). AGK  [•] 17:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my discomfort would be with handling this by summary motion on this page, and is not with a motion to open a review or a full case (or indeed with the review itself). If anything, I think a full case is less desirable than a review of limited scope. AGK  [•] 23:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer we ended this as a normal PD (and would really prefer just calling it R&I II and expanding the scope some), rather than a resolution by series of motions.. Courcelles 22:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, it will have a normal PD (and that was part of the earlier Reviews). Roger Davies  talk 14:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice per Courcelles; see second motion below. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I can live with this. Given that we haven't used this mechanism since I before I became an administrator, a single trial to see if it is still relevant and/or assess how it can be updated to become relevant once again. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Better than a full case, which is unnecessary and likely to prolong unpleasantries unnecessarily. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak support. Having reread all the comments, my own preference would be to refuse the amendment request and allow issues to be worked out at enforcement. However, it is clear that some form of motion to reopen the case is going to pass, and since we won't to resolve this matter in a short time-frame, the review mechanism is a better fit than opening a new full-fledged case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * The "review" mechanism has not been used in practice since 2007; I see no pressing need to revive it at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, though this is a good one to revive it for, to see if it will reduce the, um, Springer effect that often attends full cases.  Roger Davies  talk 14:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I keep looking at this, and I've not yet seen where ArbCom involvement is required. If the community are able to deal with a situation that should be the first approach, and I'm not yet convinced that the community are unable to deal with this.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  16:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To open a new case "Race and Intelligence 2"
The Committee will open a full arbitration case, to be titled "Race and Intelligence 2", focusing on matters broadly arising from the Race and Intelligence case. Evidence will be invited specific to the following points: Named parties to the case shall include and be limited to User:Mathsci, User:Ferahgo the Assassin, and User:Captain Occam. Captain Occam is expected to submit his evidence, should he wish to give any, by email, to the Committee. In an effort to expedite the decision process, the evidence and workshop phases shall last one week each.
 * 1) Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
 * 2) Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
 * 3) Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
 * 4) Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
 * 5) Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

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


 * Support:
 * It sounds as though there are concerns to opening a Review as outlined above, with those concerned preferring to open a new case. I echo these concerns, and propose this to resolve the matter as per our usual procedures, but with an expedited timeline to keep in line with the spirit of the motion above. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Better. Courcelles 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Second choice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First preference. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Equal preference. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I thought about proposing an identical motion, but on reflection I thought it was unnecessary. We sometimes handle narrow issues like this by summary motion on the requests page, which is wrong in my view. Such a 'review' as Roger proposes means we can deliberate more thoroughly. However, a full case would become a lengthy drama-fest, and is unjustified in the absence of a community request to re-examine the whole topic. This motion proposes to open a second case with no established basis nor scope; and the difference between a review and a full case is not mere nomenclature. Oppose at this time (with copy-edit to replace II with 2 per naming convention). AGK  [•] 23:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We have previously held that a request for amendment is sufficient to open a full case (cf. Betacommand 3). Kirill [talk] [prof] 04:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know we have, but unlike other cases - for instance BC3 - we are not dealing with a narrow dispute about one or a small group of editors. In a full case that focusses "on matters broadly arising from R&I1", we can reasonably expect to have to address broader issues despite the absence of a community request to do so. In all previous, serial cases that relate to content disputes - which are more relevant to this matter than a narrow conduct issue like Betacommand - we have had a clear community request, not a vague feeling that another case "might" be needed; cf. WP:ARBAA2, WP:ARBPIA2, WP:ARBMAC2 - all "sequels", all about wide content areas, and all made by a distinct community request and extensive community input at the requests phase. AGK  [•] 09:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is true. Funnily enough, it was partly the BC3 travails that lead me to wonder whether revisiting issues isn't better handled as a streamlined, tightly focussed, Review rather than a new case.  Roger Davies  talk 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Avoiding prolonging unpleasantries unnecessarily is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we aren't going to simply reject the request to amend, which might well be my preference, a carefully cabined review is probably a better fit for this situation than a full case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comment by Arbitrators: