< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Race and intelligence | Review Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:56, 18 April 2012 editPhilKnight (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators125,946 edits →Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned: comment← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:26, 18 April 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk \| contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned: They are already under such a topic banNext edit →
Line 573:		Line 573:
	:Oppose:		:Oppose:
	:# In the interests of practicality, a strict topic ban on any R&I-related editing ''or'' discussion ''broadly construed'' leaves Ferahgo open to contributing constructively elsewhere in subjects such as paleontology. She can't then be a proxy for Captain Occam as she'll be under the same restrictions and open to sanctions anyway. ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)		:# In the interests of practicality, a strict topic ban on any R&I-related editing ''or'' discussion ''broadly construed'' leaves Ferahgo open to contributing constructively elsewhere in subjects such as paleontology. She can't then be a proxy for Captain Occam as she'll be under the same restrictions and open to sanctions anyway. ] (] '''·''' ]) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
			:#: Ferahgo and Captain Occam are already under such an enhanced topic ban and have been for well over a year. The same topic ban also prohibited them from initiating requests at WP:AE, so it seems we are getting the same stuff coming to us as Requests for Amendment instead.  ] <sup>]</sup> 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

	:Abstain:		:Abstain:

Revision as of 16:26, 18 April 2012

Main review page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — Original case page

Review clerk: ] (]) Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

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

For this case there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Motions and requests by the parties

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Advice by individual arbitrators

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

Support:

This probably needs spelling out. Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think this probably needs a copy edit, however I support the general idea. Perhaps replace "as the consensus of the committee has any effect" with it "as it is only circumstances where a vote has determined there is sufficient support in accordance with the Arbitration Policy that has any effect." PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Added a missing "only". How about "as it only decisions of the Committee as a whole that have effect"? That avoids a very long sentence. Roger Davies 16:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sockpuppet investigations

3) The applicable sockpuppetry policy recommends that editors believing that someone is using sock puppets should create a report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations or, if personally identifying information is involved, make a report by email to CheckUsers or the Arbitration Committee.

Support:

Just reiterating the obvious, Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Not always - concerns have been raised with us via email or privately, which is correct (for instance) if there are RL names involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I've tweaked this accordingly. Roger Davies 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

I think Cas is making a valid point here, and I'd support an alternative that incorporates what he's saying. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've just copy-edited it. Roger Davies 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Better, but this also doesn't cover sensitive situations where odd results/situations/concerns come up with experienced/long time users. Our checkuser policy advises contacting functionaries list (IIRC.... when I can find the link...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting personal information

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

Support:

Again, a reminder, Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Roger, perhaps you meant "again"? But anyway, support. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I did. Tweaked ;) Roger Davies 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the statements, as worded, are too strong: once self-disclosed, something cannot be effectively undisclosed, and penalizing people for preventing the impossible-to-prevent seems silly. Still, I cannot disagree that this is how policy is currently worded. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

What harassment is not

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

Support:

From the current policy, Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sockpuppetry

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

Support:

Standard, Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Common causes

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Multiple editors with a single voice

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

Support:

This consolidates the WP:SHARE and WP:DUCK principles. Roger Davies 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Personal attacks

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Battleground conduct

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

Support:

Standard, Roger Davies 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mathsci

Mathsci: background

2.1) Mathsci avoided a conventional sanction for clear misconduct during the prior case by proposing a voluntary restriction. This restriction was subsequently lifted. Although Mathsci has not edited articles within the area of conflict, he has actively participated in enforcement of the topic's discretionary sanctions., , , , , , , , ,

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

~~Needs diffs showing participation, for due process for a FoF. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)~~

Added diffs. Sorry, I hadn't realised this was in contention, Roger Davies 08:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci: allegations of hounding

2.2) The examples of alleged hounding of Ferahgo by Mathsci do not rise to the level where ordinarily they would merit an arbitration finding. (See: Ferahgo's request statement and Ferahgo's supplementary request statement.)

Support:

Per the "What harassment is not" principle, Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I think we may need another finding to explain as background why we are saying this. PhilKnight (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this may lack a bit on context. I probably need to touch on Ferahgo's and Captain Occam's broader broadened topic ban too, if I'm going to do that as, at first sight anyway, Ferahgo's original amendment request is in breach of it. This is, of course, quite apart from any jurisdictional issues about whether topic bans that have not been issued by ArbCom can restrict access to ArbCom. Roger Davies 08:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci: Sockpuppet investigations

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

Support:

Hipocrite asserts that Mathsci was "responsible for 88% of the accurate reports". Roger Davies 14:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mathsci: personal attacks / battleground conduct

2.4) Mathsci has engaged in borderline personal attacks and frequent battleground conduct in respect of editors he perceives as ideological opponents (See: Ferahgo's request statement and Ferahgo's supplementary request statement.)

Support:

This has continued during this review and is unfortunately reminiscent of the misconduct examined the prior misconduct, Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
From my perspective, the problem is more of a battleground mentality, than of incivility. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Mathsci has tried to follow due process. Yes, the gloves have come off in a long term acerbic dispute, but most of the posts concern conduct. Unfortunately the personal material is now relevant due to the meatpuppetry issue identified. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: account creation

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

Support:

There is a close association from the start; and the long delay before editing is sometimes suggestive of a sleeper account. Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Other than two small edits on 26 November 2006, Captain Occam also waited until 2008 before editing. SilkTork 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Though I agree that a delay can be suggestive of a sleeper account, such an account would likely be created by someone with prior experience and/or knowledge of the Misplaced Pages community; in the absence of evidence of such prior experience/knowledge I would not be inclined to assume a sleeper account based only on a delay. Also worth noting is that other than the two small edits on 26 November 2006, Captain Occam also waited until 2008 before editing. If the Ferahgo the Assassin account is a sleeper, then so is the Captain Occam account, and the puppet master of the two accounts has yet to be identified. Given the scrutiny those involved in the R&I case have been subjected to, I would have thought that if there were a linked account/puppet master that would have been identified by now. SilkTork 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the many mysteries in this case is that although the accounts were registered more or less simultaneously, according to Ferahgo the registrations were made independently without discussion with each other. Roger Davies 04:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a real problem with that. My recollection is that I registered on Misplaced Pages in order to start editing beer articles, and I have been puzzled for years by this edit which I don't recall making. I think it is difficult to make assumptions about motives - good or bad - from such evidence, and while there are certain scenarios we can explore and discuss, I'm still keeping an open mind and will now focus on the edits that the Ferahgo account has made since the ArbCom case. SilkTork 13:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: Shared causes

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

Support:

The initial supports at WP:AN were made without disclosing any relationship. Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
While an anonymous account is not obliged to reveal relationships or personal details, this comment: "I saw this issue being brought up on the NPOV noticeboard and thought I'd offer a comment here" appears to be deliberately misleading. SilkTork 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Where is Mathsci's analysis of Ferahgo's 20 first edits? The link above goes to the current Evidence page where I can't find the analysis - nor can I find it on the R&I Evidence page. SilkTork 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the link. It's on the main review page, not the /Evidence page. Sorry, Roger Davies 01:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. SilkTork 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Captain Occam: topic-ban and aftermath

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

Support:

Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Worth pointing out that Ferahgo edited (mainly) paleontology related articles and the talkpages only of Race and Intelligence topics. And that in Ferahgo's words: "my primary sphere of interest is paleontology and evolution, but as you've seen it is possible for that sphere to overlap unpredictably with R&I.". SilkTork 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Reflecting on Ferahgo's comment above, I think she meant that in the case of Henry Fairfield Osborn she was editing that article because he was a paleontologist, and she got blocked because he had also worked in the field of R&I. I don't think she was commenting on the unpredictably of her edits on the talkpages of R&I articles. SilkTork 21:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked

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

Support:

The comment in the second diff provides useful context for this. Roger Davies 04:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Ferahgo has been notified that it would be inappropriate for that account to be used for editing in the R&I area, and yet the editing continued. SilkTork 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

For our purposes, under WP:Share, the two accounts are so related that effectively a notice to one is a notice to the other, and so technically the account holder(s) had also been previously notified when Captain Occam had been topic banned. When carefully examined, the account holder(s) had been infringing the topic ban for some time. However, what should also be taken into account is the behaviour of the account holder(s) since Ferahgo was formally topic-banned; unfortunately we have one clear instance of an infringement since that notice. SilkTork 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: site-ban and aftermath

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

Support:

Captain Occam's longstanding feud with Mathsci, Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: proxying

3.6) Ferahgo and Captain Occam have participated in many requests for Arbitration Enforcement, seemingly pursuing each other's or joint interests. (Requests: , , , , , , , _, , , .)

Support:

There are a few number of filings at WP:AN and WP:ANI too, some mentioned in FOF #3.2 above. Roger Davies
PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: uncertainty over authorship

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

Support:

Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from - the wording of (ii) is tricky - maybe instead of "It is more likely than not that..", one could write "There is a strong suspicion that..." Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

I think it's possible this should be split into 2 findings. I agree with the first sentence enough to support, however I'm less comfortable with the second sentence. PhilKnight (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Concur with Phil. SilkTork 21:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Mathsci: strongly admonished

1) Mathsci is strongly admonished for engaging in battlefield conduct.

Support:

As the voluntary restriction didn't seem to do the trick/has worn off, we need a formal remedy, I think. There's an alternative immediately below. Roger Davies 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

There is evidence presented that the concerns he's raised have a very real basis, as highlighted above, and most of his posts concern this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Mathsci site-banned for three months

2) Mathsci is site-banned for three months.

Support:

Alternative to remedy #1, Roger Davies 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Unconvinced this is the best approach. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned

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

Support:

Oppose:

In the interests of practicality, a strict topic ban on any R&I-related editing or discussion broadly construed leaves Ferahgo open to contributing constructively elsewhere in subjects such as paleontology. She can't then be a proxy for Captain Occam as she'll be under the same restrictions and open to sanctions anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Ferahgo and Captain Occam are already under such an enhanced topic ban and have been for well over a year. The same topic ban also prohibited them from initiating requests at WP:AE, so it seems we are getting the same stuff coming to us as Requests for Amendment instead. Roger Davies 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

In light of the discussion on the talk page, and Cas's comment, this should perhaps be split into a remedy for FtA and a separate remdy for CO. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

Vote

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