Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:11, 31 March 2012

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Meatpuppetry

Is it the position of the committee that Meatpuppetry, as described in our sockpuppetry policy at WP:SOCK is beyond the scope of this review? Hipocrite (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This review is restricted to matters directly arising out of the five questions in the scope.  Roger Davies 05:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If any of us has evidence of combative behavior by Mathsci in other areas of Misplaced Pages, it is inadmissable unless it directly relates to one of the five questions? Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is inadmissable unless it directly relates to the questions.  Roger Davies 07:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks from other editors

Can Arbcom please clarify how I should deal with personal attacks from editors besides Mathsci? (such as the most recent example here) I know the main review page says "any issues arising concerning non-parties may be raised at WP:AE once this Review is over" and I understand Roger Davies' reason for wanting the review to focus on the central issues of myself and Mathsci. But as I said in my amendment request, admins at AE have made it very clear I should not be making AE reports connected to R&I while I'm topic banned. Even when granted permission by the admin who topic banned me, the content of my report has been ignored in the past and the only thing discussed was whether I should be sanctioned for posting it. My topic ban also prohibits me from using dispute resolution for matters related to R&I, so at the moment going to Arbcom is my only option for dealing with matters like this. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Not once did your name come up on my talk page - not once, that is, until you showed up and assumed I was talking about you. In fact, I wasn't - I was talking about two other dinosaur picture&racist friends who just happened to show up here (you are here because your boyfriend asked you to show up, right?). I don't know why you have my talk page watchlisted, since you have never written a thing on it before today. When you go out looking to get offended (probably to help your case along here), you'll always find ways to do it. Hipocrite (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wha…? Surely you jest. In your evidence you claimed that TrevelyanL85A2 has faved a lot of my dinosaur illustrations at DA (that was the point of the off-wiki link you posted), and that I recruited him to support my point of view on R&I articles. After your evidence was redacted you argued with Roger Davies that it shouldn't have been, saying "What do you think the chances are that two people who are dinosaur picture friends just happen to show up at wikipedia and be Racist friends as well, after one of those two people gets banned?" It's completely obvious what you were referring to! I don't know why you'd lie about something so transparent, but I guess it's just another example of incivility that I'd like to know from Arbcom how to handle. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I was going to link TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher and Miradae to Captain Occam - all dinosaur picture devotees of yours, but racist friends of someone else. You are the nexus, not the racist. The way you should handle it is unwatching all race and intelligence articles, and all the talk pages of all the people who you only interact with in the race and intelligence space. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks and Racism and please stop making personal attacks against me. Misplaced Pages states that "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination" (my bolding). Also, I am not a friend of either Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, any racists, or dinosaur pictures. Miradae/Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Lemme try it this way "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination" (my bolding). It seems you are suggesting that if one believes that one race is inherently stupider or inferior than another, that's NOT racism, as long as one doesn't discriminate on the basis of that belief. Do I have that right Miradae? I don't know what 12 year old wrote that idiotic definition of "Racism" into the Racism article but that's actually NOT what the given source (merriam-webster) says - what it says is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race . This is a pretty good example of why you shouldn't use Misplaced Pages to source your claims. (As an aside it seems the article actually had the right definition of Racism in it one or two years ago until some people started messing with it until we got what's in there now. So much for Misplaced Pages articles improving over time.)VolunteerMarek 10:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You are arguing that "racism" include scientific findings such as that different groups have different inherent resistance on average to malaria (see Genetic resistance to malaria)? I am certainly not arguing that inherent, average group differences make any group "superior" or "inferior" so I am not a racist according to Merriam-Webster. The same applies to scientists doing research on group differences regarding genetic resistance to malaria. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a poor analogy. Genetic resistance to malaria does not correlate with "race", but rather with (historical) exposure to malaria. For example, the sickle cell gene (HbS) is common in low-lying areas of Africa where malaria is pandemic, but nearly absent in adjacent African populations in less malarious highland regions. (HbS is also relatively common in some non-African populations with a high historical exposure to malaria). It would be incorrect (and, arguably, racist) to attribute differences in malaria resistance to race. MastCell  17:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No current scientist studying race/ancestral population is arguing that race/ancestral population implies any clear clear cut geographic or genetic boundaries and traits that must be shared by everyone or not in a group. It is a fuzzy concept with diffuse boundaries and with subgroups that differ (on average) from larger groupings. It still has utility. To quote from a very recent review article discussing geneticists' view on evolution and racial/ancestral population differences: "In African populations, genes that confer resistance to malaria and trypanosomiasis (sleeping sickness) have been selected ." The Merck Manual notes that sickle-cell disease "causes a chronic hemolytic anemia occurring almost exclusively in blacks" and that "black patients with normocytic anemia (particularly if hemolysis is present) require laboratory tests for hemolytic anemia". Here are is an examples of a doctor finding the concept of race, although fuzzy, clinically useful in medicine: Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to this review article; I found it extremely thoughtful and well-written. You pulled that quote out of a figure legend, so I'm sure you've read it very closely as well. In any case, the authors expressed some things much more clearly than I could, including the need to recognize "that racial membership is, at best, a sloppy proxy for the presence of genes of interest and, furthermore, that these genes are not foolproof indicators of their correlated traits." You've presented the article as supportive of your argument, but in reality it sounds like the authors clearly don't think that racial identity "still has utility".

I think that's why the fixation on race in this setting seems a bit off; if we're talking about genetic questions, then it makes sense to focus on genes rather than racial membership, which is after all a "sloppy proxy". When people seem fixated on addressing these questions through the prism of racial identity, it's a bit off-putting because of what it says about them. It's sort of like the patient who, shown a series of Rorschach inkblots, demanded of the psychologist: "Why do you keep showing me penises, you pervert?" MastCell  21:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is quote neutral, noting both objections and arguments for racial differences including regarding IQ. That particular issue, extensively discussed in the article, may well get some answers in the near future due to new technical abilities to find which genes have been under strong selection pressure in different populations and worldwide genome mappings. That is my POV also. I am certainly not arguing that the issue is resolved currently. Regarding race in medicine, in addition to sources I mentioned in my previous post, see here for an interesting article quoted by the review: . The review also states that genetic group differences in IQ may well be an argument for helping the disadvantaged groups which I agree with. I also agree with the following from the review: "More generally, it is worth reaffirming that no such scientific finding could justify, much less obligate, discriminatory practices in a democratic society. Even if all men are not created equal in some evolutionary or genetic sense, that does not delegitimize the practice of affording moral worth equally to all persons." Possible future evidence for group differences in IQ is not evidence for a group being morally superior or inferior. So please do not accuse me of racism. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess we must have parsed the article very differently from each other. It seems clear to me that the authors take great pains to warn against trying to link IQ to specific genetic or racial determinants. In fact, the authors single out J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen for particular criticism for typifying what they view as a sloppy, unscientific, and excessively reductive approach to the subject. Anyhow... we should probably agree to disagree; I'll let it go and stop diverting this page any further than I already have from its intended purpose. MastCell  03:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP's model appears to be working with the race and intelligence article. I just read through it and it appears to me to cover the main points in a neutral fashion. If anyone thinks otherwise, please compare it with Intelligent design for an example of an article that needs some work to keep it from giving the appearance of taking a side. Cla68 (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the review, I think this quote speaks for itself: "Nevertheless, genes might be discovered that are implicated in behavioral or cognitive traits under selection within certain populations. At present, there are not well-evidenced candidates, but many researchers are investigating the evolution of genes implicated in cognitive development, and one should be prepared for this possibility." The issue is undecided but more conclusive genetic evidence favoring the partially-hereditarian side may not be far off and the article discusses how researchers should handle such possible evidence at length. Regarding Rushton and Jensen, the review is here leaving its expertise area of genetic research and is entering psychological IQ research and is citing Rushton and Jensen incorrectly, as can be seen in the original article. Regarding the race and intelligence article, I will just refer to the many talk page examples of problems, like this one where an entire important line of argumentation has been deleted from the article: talk:Race_and_intelligence#Removed_SES_material. Anyway, I agree with MastCell that discussion is drifting away so lets just agree to disagree and rest the discussion. I have said my final word on this matter here unless some important new arguments are introduced. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) If you can't discuss things without getting heated/snarky/personal, I'll ask the clerks to start waving the ban hammers about.  Roger Davies 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I please get some feedback from arbitrators on this? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you must ... It's not the way I would have expressed the same thought but it's not - in my view - per se actionable.  Roger Davies 11:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my first post here, what I'm trying to ask is how Arbcom intends for me to deal with personal attacks from other editors in general. There's been a lot more of this over the past year or so than just in this thread, and it shows no sign of abating. The review page says that issues concerning non-parties can be raised at AE after the review is finished. But I can't do that because of my topic ban, and I'm also not allowed to start an RFC. Can you please provide some guidance about my original question? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Can an arbitrator please answer my question? I'm waiting for an answer on this before I submit evidence, as it will affect what I submit. But the deadline for evidence is in just a few days. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Acknowledging that I've read this, but that I'm not going to attempt to articulate an opinion at 3 in the morning, I'll come back by tomorrow, assuming Roger doesn't first. Courcelles 06:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding earlier (real life intervened). I think we first need to see evidence of any personal attacks made after your extended topic ban was put in place before we decide how to respond to this question. Accordingly, please email the committee with details, including diffs, at your earliest convenience.  Roger Davies 08:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I have two additional questions:

1. Should this email be part of my evidence or should it be a separate thing?

2. Some of the editors who've made personal attacks against me during this time seem to have a much broader incivility problem on these articles. Is Arbcom interested in seeing evidence of this broader incivility, or should it be limited only to examples directed at me? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• It should be separate. The sole purpose is to establish whether, on the face of it, there is anything that might require further investigation. As it isn't covered by the five questions, it is not part of this review. Please limit it to stuff directed directly and unambiguously at you.  Roger Davies 11:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, please send what you have, inline with Roger's comments, to ArbCom. We'll take a look ASAP and get back to you. In the meantime, it might be good to present our evidence that relates directly to the questions of this review, given there is no workshop phase of this review. Speaking for myself, I consider it highly unlikely the scope of this review will expand beyond those questions (even if something merits further investigation, I consider it most likely it would be in some other venue) Courcelles 07:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also appreciate it if Ferrahgo the Assassin could add her submission to the evidence page fairly soon: she has had more than a week now. I will be adding my own supplementary response to Question 4. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Private Evidence

May I ask why the committee is accepting private evidence? Should not the accused be allowed to review the evidence submitted about them? Hipocrite (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In this instance because personal information is involved and/or a topic ban may otherwise be breached. Of course, per admissibility of evidence, the "accused" will be given an opportunity to respond.  Roger Davies 11:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have pointed out already that Ferahgo the Assassin has broken her topic ban several times during her Request for Amendment. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence sub-pages

I have a question on length requirements for the review. The evidence page says "evidence presented must be factual, supported by diffs and links, and within the usual length restrictions". This ruling in the original R&I case also says "If the evidence runs over the permitted length, it should not be continued on sub-pages but instead permission should be sought from the drafting arbitrator for an over-length submission." Mathsci's evidence subpage here goes over the length restriction. Is that allowed allowed during this review? If this is the case I'd like to know, in the event that I may want to submit additional stuff on a subpage that goes beyond the length requirements too. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence is closed. Hipocrite (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the evidence page would be locked when evidence is closed, and Mathsci's newest addition is just a few hours old. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Every edit on wikipedia is timestamped. The timestamp on his comments has in it the string "26 March." Evidence closed at the end of "26 March." Hipocrite (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• That subpage was created for the convenience of arbitrators, because of a comment by Roger Davies. It is not part of my evidence but simply a historical record of what I placed on the amendment page before motions were announced. There are also four subpages elsewhere on an alternative account where diffs were gathered.

• I am concerned that FtA's evidence seems to have been written by CO, since it parrots his remarks about Scibaby socks from December 2010 and misrepresents the technical reason a SPI/CU request was made. If FtA is editing on CO's behalf here, continuing the disruption that led to his site-ban, then things are fairly serious. The two diffs that CO placed on User talk:Ludwigs2 in April 2011 can presumably be taken to be their joint view of matters. As far as Mikemikev is concerned, there is no comparison in any way with Scibaby. Mikemikev's postings are problematic on and off-wiki. CO-FtA Fhas chosen to use one SPI report concerning Mikemikev as their sole evidence (on-wikipedia). In that case the submission was made because edits to compensatory education interleaved a set of edits by an ipsock of Mikemikev from Imperial College London. That is stated very precisely in the submission, where I also wrote that I had my doubts. Checkuser requests do not to have to be granted and can be refused. Before Maunus desysopped himself, WP:DUCKY Mikemikev socks were often blocked and tagged by him directly, to save time. A similar request concerning Rrrrr5 led checkusers to discover the usurpation of the administrative account Spencer195. Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the point of all of the above, but what makes you sure the arbitrators don't consider this ruling to apply to that subpage? Not to mention the four you say you created with your alternative account. Have the arbitrators told you this is ok? My understanding of that ruling is that it's partly because subpages created for arbitration cases can be perceived as attack pages, whether they're technically part of your evidence or not. Can Arbcom please clarify? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood that.  Roger Davies 13:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Subpages containing diffs are not attack pages during a case or review. They are a convenient way of gathering evidence and, in the case of the one visible page, something I created as a response to Roger Davies' request. In multiple other cases I have gathered diffs in a similar way: the pages are marked {{noindex}} and usually deleted at the close of the case (in the Noleander case, I created an example of how an article on the Economic history of the Jewish people might be written). Mathsci (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Easiest is just to move them to subpages of the /Review case page, Mathsci. I'll delete the redirects later. You'll need to update the links. Roger Davies 13:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It'll take me a little while to work out the subpage. Just to emphasize, this is not evidence :) Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Done but not without making 3 errors because I am not used to maving pages between article space and project space. Three pages will need to be deleted. Mathsci (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I've deleted those three redirect pages. Courcelles 23:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Mathsci (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence Deadline

The evidence deadline on this case was the 26th. It is no longer the 26th. Why is evidence still being submitted? Hipocrite (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

FtA's contribution does not appear to be evidence, just a comment on a comment added above here by me. It should probably be moved to the thread above. Mathsci (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of evidence presented by CO-FtA

The first point to be made concerns twisting arbitrators' instructions. In Question 4, Roger Davies refers only to edits outside article space (i.e. articles and their talk pages). Here is the record in WP space and WT space (there is also UT space ). With very few exceptions, all diffs there are indistinguishable from those of CO. FtA seems to have twisted this question in her late response on the evidence page.

In 2010 and 2011 there are multiple examples of (a) twisting arbitrators' comments (diffs where arbitrators write this on-wiki can be provided if required) and (b) acting in concert with CO outside article space. A particularly egregious example of that occurred in December 2010. I made a request for clarification about my edits outside article space. That had two indirect results: a motion to lift my topic ban (by mutual consent) on the initiative of arbcom; and an extended topic ban on FtA and CO outside article space enacted at WP:AE. It was at that stage that CO caused disruption in multiple venues on wikipedia, by suggesting impropriety on the part of an arbitrator, with the apparent aim of nullifying the motion. FtA made her own comments about this during CO's arbitration enforcement appeal.

This on-wiki evidence shows that CO and FtA have a record for misrepresenting other users, including possible sanctions on them, and twisting the words of arbitrators. Without looking further, FtA's comments above about my evidence on this page and her late comments on the evidence page follow that pattern. I have no idea what either CO and FtA have submitted in private to the arbcom mailing list. In the request for amendment that led up to this review, FtA broke her extended topic ban several times and misrepresented me in a number of ways, including repeatedly making the false assertion that I was trying to get her blocked. The editing in October-November 2010 described in my evidence incidentally is an example of exactly the kind of disruptive editing criticized in the original case.

My own involvement in matters concerning arbitration pages has been purely technical (even on this page there is one piece of interesting technical information). Regarding the two main puppetmasters mentioned in my evidence, Echigo mole reported himself at WP:SPI (as user William Hickey) and reported Mikemikev (as Old Crobuzon). In both cases it would seem that he was trolling by trying to imitate me. The four sockpuppets Echigo mole/A.K.Nole used on the amendment page were the ipsock 94.196.72.148 and the accounts The Wozbongulator, Reginald Fortune and William Hickey. He also created Laura Timmins, who suffered the same fate as the rest of them. Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition I am somewhat confused by what FtA means above about requesting an RfC (does she mean WP:Requests for Comment/Mathsci?). Like the RfC on WBB which precipitated the extended topic ban of CO-FtA, is this not an example of a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to wikipedia? A misuse of wikipedia procedures to place editors in good standing under undue pressure for no reason other than the "mindset" expressed in CO's two diffs cited above? FtA's request for amendment was flawed in several ways.

• It was a joint request on behalf of a site-banned user for whom she continued to lobby even after WP:SHARE had been pointed out to her multiple times.
• Neither her request not her evidence has provided any evidence of any significant interaction, as Newyorkbrad and Elen of the Roads have pointed out.

• Neverthless, repeatedly expressing her "malaise" without diffs, she has successively brought in everything she and CO could muster up, including information known only to CO about oversighted edits summaries, of no concern to them whatsoever and information that all of arbcom was informed of at the time through an email to the arbcom lists from me.

The editing by proxies described by Shell Kinney in my evidence is not under discussion. However, if I understand correctly, on User talk:Hipocrite FtA has written that, as far as she is concerned, evidence directly accessible from webpages linked to her WP userpage can be used on wikipedia. Having made that concession she should probably explain why subpages of the linked page have postings by TrevelyanL85A2 where he describes her as a "good friend"..

FtA has been misrepresenting me as the sole person involved at WP:AE, whereas I have been one amongst many commenting. I have not been the initiator of most requests, but have commented where appropriate, presenting technical evidence.

I found one thing off-wiki concerning these issues by accident in early May 2011, I don't remember precisely how. It was a fake off-wiki comment concerning arbcom by an account labelled Mathsci. That led me to and I informed Shell Kinney in private about this and complained on FtA's talk page. A few days later Mikemikev created a copycat posting in comic strip style on my user page as Comicania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Here is a copy. It was deleted on Commons by Philippe Beaudette at the request of Moonriddengirl and the account was blocked on wikipedia by MastCell. I mentioned Mikemikev's postings on User talk:Shell Kinney here making a reference to the eponymous comic strip formerly linked to the user page of CO. The Mikemikev attack page is actually marginally nicer than the off-wiki posting FtA later admitted her friends had posted as an April Fools joke and where she had commented herself (the fake account Mathsci was created in November 2010 during the editing period described in my evidence). On my talk page FtA later described me as "creepy" finding that page and sending her an email (the only way I knew how to contact her to express that I was not happy with this kind of nonsense; I made an informed guess who the perpetrator was). As an ethical response, she could have arranged that the fake accounts were closed down promptly, since she had already conceded on-wiki that the person who set them up was one of her "friends". That did not happen. Later Captain Occam wrote the following: "Based on his repeated claiming that editors who disagree with him are specific real-life friends of Ferahgo, he’s also apparently conducted a large amount of real-life research about her. She’s a 24-year-old girl, and she doesn’t appreciate having a middle-aged man that she doesn’t know prying into aspects of her personal life." Again this twists facts, by presenting me as someone editing simply to push a POV (what?) and as some some kind of sexual pervert (really?), just as FtA did on my talk page. So again on WP, outside article space CO and FtA use the same "sex pervert meme" as a way of dismissing what Shell Kinney had already discussed with CO, as detailed in my evidence, and which, according to Shell Kinney's postings, he has denied. Mathsci (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by Comicania

I will comment on this in further detail here, as a sample case of on-wiki harassment by socks. It took over 2 weeks to work out who it was (Mikemikev). I will try to reconstruct how that was worked out on-wiki (some time later he posted the same file off-wiki on ED.ch as Mikemikev). Mathsci (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This was initially confusing, because of the comic strip and what I mentioned in the previous section. Initially I thought it had to do with DeviantArt, then that it was Echigo mole. However a little later in a separate question from Maunus about another sockpuppet account Supershorts (talk · contribs), TnXman confirmed independently as a checkuser that it was Mikemikev on May 31. None of this is simple. The ED.ch posting was significantly later. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I assume also that, since they all use the same kind of language, the current round of attacks on the evidence page and my user talk page is all due to the same so-far unidentified person.71.244.8.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), peterxoxo123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Joeniger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Very odd scope of case

Is there any evidence at all that Ferahgo has aided and abetted the activities of obvious malefactors such as Mikemikev? Any evidence that she has orchestrated, or participated in any "meatpuppetry" by Occam et al? It has now been established beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is in communication with Occam, and is sympathetic towards his position — but what of it? I know of no policy which declares every blocked or banned user an enemy of the people with whom all contact is forbidden. The "meatpuppetry" proscription primarily concerns editing articles at the request of banned users, though even this restriction is softened when dealing with requests by BLP subjects. In any event, "meatpuppetry" only occurs when editors act on requests without the exercise of independent judgement. The argument that anyone who has ever advocated for the reinstatement of a banned editor is "functionally indistinguishable" from them is a non-starter. Ferahgo has certainly raised complaints about Mathsci to stop him from running her name through the mud, which hardly seems to constitute a continuation of the Mathsci/Occam feud. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)