Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:07, 16 April 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

Copyvios

Ferhago the Assassin in her recent edits today added 4 illegal images on Commons, claiming dishonestly that the images had been licensed under a Creative Commons license, and then linked them to wikipedia articles. All of these were blatant copivios, I contacted User:Alison earlier today to indicate that there was a problem and then later tagged two of them on commons. All four of them have now been been deleted. All of these linked to DeviantArt. I have no understanding of why Ferahgo the Assassin thought she could upload those images: her actions are inexplicable. She has on previous occasions asserted that nothing on that site concerning her can be examined. Now, however, with these edits she has stepped over a line and placed herself in a sitiation where normally it would be hard to defend her actions or prevent wikipedians from looking at her own participation on DeviantArt. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment My own understanding is that Ferahgo the Assassin has been less than open in what she has written on wikipedia. I also understand that arbitrators, including Roger Davies, have been aware of that for some period of time (probably more than a year). Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, YOU tagged these images at Commons? I explained the issue fully here. The artists of all four images gave me explicit permission to upload the images at commons. They told me they'd uploaded them at DA under the correct licenses to use at commons, but they apparently failed to understand the difference between CC licenses and just selected DA's default option for CC license. I have been contacting the artists explaining the situation, and they are replacing the license so I can re-upload them correctly. I have already done so with one of them and he has replaced the image himself, after changing the license.

Incidentally, this is exactly the kind of behavior from you that makes me want an interaction ban. I do not need you to police me and follow me around like this, on-Wiki or off. I am quite capable of working out honest copyright mistakes on my own. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, FtA has not been editing wikimedia commons in a responsible way. The files were deleted very quickly without any help from me, as blatant copyvios. Where were FtA's OTRS tickets? In the absence of those, she was just lying. DeviantArt is a site for kids. It has no academic validity whatsoever. She added an image of a dinosaur with blood oozing from its jaws, with no permission whatsoever from the creator. Why did she do that? Just for LULZ? If Ferahgo the Assassin is now claiming that instances of illegal uploading of images to commons have been reported in the past by me, I suggest she support that with diffs. Otherwise it would appear that she is not being particularly truthful (groan). How surprising is that: she is speaking here on behalf of a site-banned user, without even the tiniest flicker of self-doubt. I have not so far seen any evidence at all that she or her boyfriend (is Roger going to scream at me for saying that?) have presented against me. Mathsci (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

But you just said "All of these were blatant copivios, I contacted User:Alison earlier today to indicate that there was a problem and then later tagged two of them on commons." So according to you, you both tagged two of the images and contacted an admin about them. And then you say, immediately after, "No, they were deleted vey quickly without any help from me, as blatant copyvios." And then you call me a liar. Ok.

The original artists for these images are currently fixing the licenses and re-uploading them. This would be a complete non-issue if you weren't making a big deal about it. I don't pay attention to what you do on commons, post personal information about you, or insult your involvement in non-Wikimedia communities. The really flummoxing thing here is that you think it's okay to resort to these kinds of reality-distorted personal attacks and character assassination. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The files uploaded by FtA were deleted as copyvios because she chose to misrepresent three users from DeviantArt on Commons (and wikipedia) with false claims about Creative Commons licensing. In cases like this it's best to follow policy instead of attempting to bend the rules. As far as using images go, in my own case, for the article on Edmund de Unger, I wished in the last two months or so to use 2 images from flickr which specified "no commericial use" (an 11th century Fatimid rock crystal ewer and a 13th century engraved Persian silver dish). Technically both were unusable. I contacted 2 different photographers in private, asking each of them if it might be possible to alter the Creative Commons licenses for those files. Both very kindly obliged. That's the normal way things are done on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's AGF. According to the many-worlds interpretation, it is entirely possible that Mathsci simultaneously did and did not pursue the deletions. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

These "recreations" on DeviantArt were almost all original research by eager but uninformed amateurs (is WP really the place for recreations with blood soaked jaws?). Uploading them with non-existent creative commons licenses was not particularly helpful and a very odd way to go about things. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Most probably aren't original research, unless you consider things like File:BH LMC.png just as objectionable because they involve similar artistic interpretations. WP:OI covers this issue in detail. Image licensing mistakes are common and do not imply that an editor did it for the lulz. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The main point, as far as this review is concerned, is that FtA's recent editing on wikipedia has necessitated delving into the website DeviantArt, because on wikipedia she has used images not created by her from there. Mathsci (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I never uploaded an image of a dinosaur with "blood-soaked jaws". If you're referring to this image you should be able to tell the red is pigment in the skin of its face, as in the wattles of a turkey (if you're referring to something else, I have no idea what you're talking about). As promised, by the way, the artist has changed the license on that image to the appropriate one at my request. Now to be clear: are you saying that because I made an honest copyvio mistake which I then corrected, you think it's okay to follow me to Commons and DA to keep an eye on me and police my paleontology contribs? That's beyond absurd. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The focus of this case is not on copyvio dinosaur pictures, a situation which has been resolved. The pictures incident has little bearing on why Ferahgo's participation in DeviantArt has been criticized. Look, it's possible to dig up all sorts of information on editors. Ferahgo's DeviantArt contributions are no secret, nor is her real name. Using these, one could find a wide variety of biographical material. But how much of it would actually be relevant to any situation existing on Misplaced Pages? This website is not an appropriate forum for the discussion of the merits of editors personal lives or their choice of company. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what Alessandra Napolitana is referring to or indeed why she is commenting here. Files on commons were deleted because they were uploaded with improper licenses. FtA did not seek permission from the three creators on DeviantArt before she did the initial uploadng and she had to be prodded into doing so. The main point, however, was that it was necessary to look in detail at several DeviantArt pages. including her own, in ascertaining what was going on: it is precisely that which she has objected to in the past. It is that fundamental inconsistency that I am pointing out here. (The reliability of DeviantArt as a source is another matter, but it is not a substitute in any way at all for peer-reviewed content in mainstream academic journals or books.) FtA must be aware, having gone to all the effort with CO of lobbying for this review, that her own actions would be under scrutiny. FtA has previously uploaded images with a watermark on Commons (i.e. her own signature): she should remove that signature per WP:WATERMARK. FtA-CO bear sole responsibility for having their actions scrutinized. Together they made the choice of requesting an amendment for the second time and must accept the consequences now. Mathsci (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Update header request

Per please update the header to say Estimates instead of DeadlinesNobody Ent 18:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

We will consider this suggestion. I suggest the word "target" rather than "deadline" for the proposed decision and comparable dates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"What harassment is not" principle

This gives short shrift to the wikihounding issue. All things considered, it is questionable whether regularly scrutinizing all contributions of any nature, across multiple WMF and non-WMF projects, by an editor with whom one has a disagreement for anything that could possibly be used against them is conducive to a collegial environment. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Apart from Echigo mole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), during this review no evidence has been produced on wikipedia of wikihounding. The behaviour of Mikemikev also hit rock bottom in March. Mathsci (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Request by Ferahgo the Assassin

FtA is yet again lobbying off the case pages. She seems to be upset that her copyvios on Commons were discovered by me. But those copyvios are her responsibility, not mine. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary interaction between Ferahgo and Mathsci

Hi Ferahgo and Mathsci:

Please limit any interaction between yourselves strictly to matters directly concerning this case and limit discussion to the parties themselves. Any further out-of-scope accusations/counter-accusations are likely to be dealt with robustly, by topic bans from case and talk pages and/or short blocks. Enough is enough.  Roger Davies 08:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, I wanted to request something to this effect anyway. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Justice delayed

The whole conduct of this case shows up nicely how desperate AC is to find against FTA. The original request was allowed to fester for two months to give Mathsci plenty of time to continue his hounding; Mathsci was allowed to spend two weeks after the close of evidence presenting extra evidence at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review/Evidence; the decision slated for the 2nd has been delayed by over a week to allow Mathsci to open up yet another front in his campaign of harassment, now at this page over the last couple of days. A veneer of evenhandedness has been thrown over that by forbidding MS and FTA to interact here - in other words, to prevent FTA from pursuing any complaint about the ongoing campaign of baiting MS has been waging against her. Presumably the decision will continue to be inexplicably postponed until FTA says something which can be construed as uncivil, whereupon the case can be closed against her. What a shambles. 94.196.4.5 (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC) IP sock of Echigo mole. this is the seventm time Echigo mole/A.K.Nole has posted on an arbcom page connected with the Request for amendment (two IPs and three sockpuppets). I've already listed the other occurrences. Mathsci (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The dates for the release of a proposed decision are not definite, they are instead targets. Please be patient. Lord Roem (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the latest sockpuppet report on Echigo mole connected with the above trolling. Is it entirely surprising within the circumstances that Amalthea and other administrators who man the SPI pages have suggested listing Echigo mole/A.K.Nole under LTA? The wikistalking has been going on since 2009. As I mentioned on the talk page of the evidence page, he already intervened as an IP in the previous arbcom case WP:ARBR&I (as the Sheffield IP) and helped precipitate it both as Zarboublian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (indef blocked as a sockpuppet a few months later by Shell Kinney) and another ipsock. Mathsci (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Further to what Casliber has written, I do have experience of a CU telling me in private that accounts had been checked and come up negative, when I was hesitating about a sockpuppet report. Certainly when the socking has involved outing me on wikipedia, I make the report off-wiki (that has happened several times when the name of the sock account has included my full name and initials or the sockpuppet has posted my full name on ANI or elsewhere; those reports were made through oversighters/arbcom). Usually I request SPI reports only when there is some hard evidence, even if there are other ambiguities which confuse matters. Occasionally other wikipedia processes such as WP:AE can interfere with SPI reports (that has happened once with me and was stated explicitly at the time). In addition Roger Davies made these informal comments on the PD talk page of the original case: "The purpose of topic ban in this case is mostly to prevent the topic-banned editor from (i) continuing the same disputes (ii) starting new parallel disputes covering much the same ground and (ii) generally pushing the same POV by proxy. As the remedy is broadly construed, it can apply to any article with a significant race and/or intelligence component." Meatpuppetry (by geographically separated editors) is not being discussed here, as far as I am aware; but I have no idea how arbitrators imagine how the "proxy-editing" mentioned by Roger Davies could be determined, beyond (a) circumstantial on-wiki evidence: unexplained coordinated editing out of the blue or (b) checkuser evidence: two people sharing the same IP. Perhaps he had something else in mind.

The hardest sockpuppet case so far for me has been Andreabenia, who harassed me on wikipedia; it was confirmed (by Elockid) by copious socking from what must have been the same IP after the indefinite block. Mikemikev and Echigo mole/A.K.Nole are usually not too hard. Since their editing has specifically been mentioned in this review and the run up to it (which they have both interrupted), it is quite possible that games could have been played during that period to confuse checkusers or me. Mathsci (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Even if this is Mikemikev (which I don't doubt), shouldn't you wait for checkuser confirmation before tagging an IP "confirmed"? I see you tagged both IPs as confirmed socks even before reporting them at SPI. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have commented elsewhere on these very recent edits: if you feel that you have any useful information to contribute on the talk page of Newyorkbrad, on ANI or at the SPI report, please do so. But here is not appropriate, where this is so clear-cut (and self-admitted). All of these IPs are open proxies from China and therefore (a) illegal on WP and (b) as IPs cannot be looked at by checkusers (why even suggest it?) The edits by 3 IPs in the same range leave no doubt. Here's a sample: , . Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really not sure anymore about whether your sock-strategies are helpful overall. There's the thing involving Yfever I mentioned in my evidence, and there's also your treatment of editors who don't deal with socks in exactly the way you'd prefer. Here you argued against five different editors (including a former arbitrator) that Echigo Mole's edits to an article should be reverted on sight without thinking about whether they improved the article. And another was here, where you threatened the admin Trodel with arbitration because Trodel didn't want to remove a post by Echigo Mole from his talk page. I agree these socks are disruptive, and the point of dealing with socks is to prevent them from disrupting wikipedia. But your aggressive methods of dealing with them are often disruptive themselves, and I think it should be carefully considered whether there might be a better way to go about it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is the more disruptive, the disruptor who disrupts the disruption, or the disruptive one who would disrupt the disruptor? aprock (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why FtA-CO commented about the wikistalking of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole in this way. In private arbitrators have expressed empathy/sympathy for this situation, which has involved outing at several stages; but FtA-CO seem to be using it as another way of attacking me: what do they mean by "aggressive methods"? Misplaced Pages has clear policy about edits by banned users, whether it is sensible or not. FtA has already had an explanation from an administrator, Amalthea, who removed a trolling message by another IP in this range from her own user talk page. Amalthea gave a straightforward explanation: "Hi, I removed a section from your talk page a few minutes ago. I wrote in the edit summary "rv provocations of banned user", which was technically not correct, the user was never formally banned. I consider him effectively banned though. He has been stalking Mathsci's edits for quite some time now, and leaves messages for users Mathsci is or seems to be in dispute with, trying to further those disputes." That explantion of an IPsock was directly to FtA (without my intervention). The wikistalking is clear enough. The list of named sockpuppets after A.K.Nole was Quotient group, Taciki Wym, Holding Ray, Zarboublian, Julian Birdbath, Old Crobuzon, Echigo mole. Ansatz, The Wozbongulator, A.B.C.Hawkes, Laura Timmins, Glenbow Goat, Tryphaena, Reginald Fortune, William Hickey, and others, including multiple IP socks in the ranges 212.183.140.* (vodafone, up to December 2011) and 94.196.*.* and 94.197.*.* recently. Echigo mole himself was blocked by AGK when he monitored the SPI page. Others have been blocked by Shell Kinney. Arbcom helped sort out the vodafone IPs, which were confusing at the time. Elen of the Roads sent me an emailin early 2011 since outing issues were involved at that stage. Amalthea and other administrators have suggested that the account be listed under long term abuse. That was suggested because these problems are recurrent and a page for LTA would remove the need to leave lengthy separate messages like the one Amalthea left on FtA's talk page. (CO, shortly before he was site-banned, did attempt to act as a proxy for Grundle2600, adding edits on his behalf after an email request, so he (and possibly FtA) has slightly different views on banned editors.) So to reiterate; a page for LTA is the way forward as Amalthea and others have suggested, but that takes times to prepare. Echigo mole is only distantly related to the original case and only because of his stalking of me. I'm not sure arbcom is here to solve that problem. Mathsci (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• As a result of the report at ANI on the latest two of the three open proxies used by Mikemikev, they have been blocked for 1 year by Elockid. Tagging of open proxies is a purely academic issue, since they are illegal on wikipedia. The SPI report would normally be closed with no action (as all 3 IPs have now been dealt with) and is left there as a reference for future socking (likewise the tagging). WP:DUCK applied here. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• With Echigo mole, there are no redeeming features. Since December 2011 in the IP range almost all he's done is troll or try to edit articles I'm editing. It's quite easy to pick out the diffs of Echigo in the IP ranges, because I edit some quite obscure articles, including in this case a series of articles on univalent holomorphic functions, early saints and organ music. Often the edits are in conjunction with the sockpuppet accounts listed above.
  • Edits in the range 94.196:
  • Edits in the range 94.197

This is all wikistalking. During the same period, there was an even more problematic set of edits on mathematics articles by Ansatz, eventually indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Response - extension of voluntary topic ban to all project space

Extension of voluntary topic ban

I have not said this before, simply because it has never in fact arisen before. However, to help arbitrators reach a decision and since it means very little to me, I am quite willing at this stage to extend unconditionally my current indefinite voluntary withdrawal from editing article and article talk space related to R&I to all of project space. This is not a big deal for me and, if I read past and present comments by Roger Davies and other arbitrators correctly, it would be a way of clearing the air. I am quite good at spotting Mikemikev socks, but that is a minor loss. Mathsci (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Other remarks (not particularly important)

Supplementary comments on the evidence cited to FtA's Request for amendment

Just some brief comments on the statements of FtA-CO that has been cited as evidence of "personal attacks" and a "battleground approach," purportedly within WP:ARBR&I and the scope of this review. This evidence seems either (1) outside the scope of this review, (2) completely unrelated to WP:ARBR&I or (3) unrelated in any way to CO or FtA. I cannot see that it is evidence of either personal attacks or a battleground approach to editing.

• First set (initial presentation), Ferahgo's request statement:
  • The first diff of FtA is unrelated to R&I but the abortion case. It concerns gathering evidence for the abortion case, in which I had previously commented and in particular allegations of misconduct concerning MastCell It is beyond the scope of this review and is unrelated to WP:ARBR&I.
  • The second diff was about the abortion case, a comment during Jclemens election campaign, on his election discussion page. It is beyond the scope of this review and unrelated to WP:ARBR&I. Is this seriously being considered as evidence of anything at all?
  • The third, fourth and fifth diffs concern a problematic logged-off edit of Boothello, unrelated to neither CO or FtA. Again it is beyond the scope of this review as it does not concern any of the parties and unrelated to any of the five questions.
  • The sixth diff is a comment at WP:ANI related to Orangemarlin's illness. I had previously commented in private about this to multiple arbitrators. It has nothing to do with R&I and is beyond the scope of this review. (I pointed out that CO's comments about Orangemarlin's illness seemed unethical, without suggesting any consequences at all. Risker's three blocks were a surprise to me, and I think I even emailed Casliber after the initial block of Orangemarlin. The inclusion of this diff is particularly problematic, as it suggests somehow that I have been blamed for CO's site-ban. My thoughts there were obviously with Orangemarlin.)
  • In the next diff Eraserhead1 had cited a claim in evidence for the civility arbcom case that concerned me and I asked him to correct that on his user talk page. It was related to CO's letter to the Economist, which concerned me, as CO explained at length on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Again this is beyond the scope of this review and has nothing to do with WP:ARBR&I.
  • The next diffs concern FtA's friend TrevelyanL85A2, who resumed editing in the area of her topic ban. Again that proxy-editing has been deemed to be beyond the scope of this review.
• Second set (further presentation), Ferahgo's supplementary request statement:
  • The diffs produced by FtA were examples of Echigo mole trolling on FtA's talk page using the IP ranges 94.196.*.* and 94.197.*.* and were removed accordingly. Similar trolling edits were made later by another IP sock of Echigo mole in the same range and removed by Amalthea, a checkuser on WP:SPI familiar with Echigo mole socking. This is a known long-term wikistalker and better evidence should be produced than this.
  • The WP:AE request was made without any proposed remedy: the statement that I requested a block is incorrect. The situation was anomolous and TrevelyanL85A2 received a logged warning as a result of the comments of multiple users. Mathsci (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In my evidence and on the evidence talk page I cited arbitrators who had said on-wiki that both CO and FtA have twisted facts. That seems to be exactly what has been repeated here (a diff from one of Jclemens' arbcom election pages or the edits of a well-known serial wikistalker, c'mon folks). It appears that the diffs have never been checked carefully, even at the stage of the first submission in early January. Two arbitartors have so far accepted these diffs without comment (RD & PK). Please could they explain why a little more carefully. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments on proposed remedies

There is one thing about my finding of facts that I completely don't understand, and I really hope Arbcom will consider this carefully before voting to ban me.

As Allesandra Napolitano stated here, the connection between my account and Occam's is obvious. We joined at the same time in 2006 due to a suggestion from a mutual friend, and were supportive of each other at first - neither of us were initially aware of the WP:SHARE policy. But prior to today, it has never been suggested that I shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages at all (outside of R&I, which I haven't edited since 2010). I don't understand what current behavior I'm being sanctioned for. All of the diffs of my supporting Occam at AE or AN/I are over a year old.

To put it another way, if this ban is meant to be preventative rather than punitive, I have no idea what behavior it is meant to prevent. Prior to this request, my only involvement in Misplaced Pages for the past year had been editing paleontology articles, so the only thing banning me will prevent is that I won't be able to finish the Specimens of Archaeopteryx article, any other paleo article, or contribute artwork.

If Arbcom can accept that Captain Occam and I are separate people (we've had separate identifies at Deviantart since 2004), I would like them to please tell me what I should have done differently in the present to avoid this outcome. I can only see two possibilities: 

1. That because of my having supported Occam two years ago, my experience at Misplaced Pages has been permanently poisoned ever since then. So after Occam's and my interests diverged, I should not have even been making edits to paleontology articles.

2. That I should not have made this request for arbitration. I explained in my private evidence how some of Mathsci's behavior towards me has real-life consequences for me, and it is also the case that I could not pursue this issue at AE or start an RFC due to my topic ban. If the only current behavior for which I'm being sanctioned is this arbitration request itself, how should I have dealt with Mathsci's behavior? If I can't request arbitration about it without being considered Occam's proxy, does Arbcom just expect me to grin and bear it?

Please answer these questions. Since this proposed ban is indefinite, Arbcom will require that I understand my mistakes in the present and promise never to repeat them if I want it lifted in the future. So I need to know what I should have done to prevent this, other than going back in time 2 years ago and reading the WP:SHARE policy in 2010.

Technical connection

Before making such a huge and unalterable decision to site ban me, I would like Arbcom to run another checkuser to compare myself to Occam to see if our accounts are still indistinguishable technically. The last time this was checked was over a year ago, and our living situation has changed since then. I think it may be the case that we don't share an IP anymore. As with the behavior FoFs, any finding related to technical evidence needs to be based on the current situation, not the 2010 situation. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom apparently considers your request for an interaction ban between yourself, Mathsci, and Captain Occam to constitute proxying for Occam in light of your relationship with him. Despite this being their sole allegation of misconduct in over a year, they regard it as so grievous an offense that they are willing to site ban you for it, thereby potentially losing all of your future contributions to paleontology articles. Because of political considerations such as Occam's POV on R&I, any future contributions you make to Misplaced Pages will be subject to extreme scrutiny by powerful editors seeking to exact sophomoric revenge. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, in FOF 3.5 arbcom cites what it considers to be examples of yourself and Occam both participating in the same AE requests. I've reviewed the most recent ones without finding a single discussion to which you both contributed. It's as though arbitrators were copying evidence into the FOF without even bothering to determine its truth. Like I said, arbcom is playing with loaded dice. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what arbcom means is that both you and Occam express the same POV in R&I related AE discussions. No, that couldn't be it either, since the last time you commented in one of the AE requests listed in FOF 3.5 not directly related to your own editing was over one year ago, and occam didn't comment in the only listed AE request about your editing within the last year. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)