Revision as of 06:41, 10 July 2012

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets

Initiated by TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) at 19:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Jclemens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

MastCell: Future Perfect: Jclemens: Nyttend: Mathsci: Collect: SightWatcher:

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mathsci/Archive#26_May_2012
• User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Community_confidence
• User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#Your_conduct
• User_talk:MastCell#Deleting_through_ArbCom_protection...
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive236#Response_to_wikihounding
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive116#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_TrevelyanL85A2
• User_talk:Jclemens/Archive_10#warning_logged_at_R.26I.3F

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

I apologise for this late request. I requested arbitration on the mailing list on 12 June, following advice I was given at AE to do so, but ArbCom advised me (on 28 June) that I should make my request in public after my block expired. As ArbCom has seen my initial complaint, they know it can't be described without referring to some editors who were formerly involved in R&I. Therefore, I take ArbCom's instructions that I make the complaint in public to mean I should just summarise the dispute, without otherwise commenting on these editors.

Since May, MastCell has made several administrative actions defending Mathsci's interests in disputes related to Echigo Mole. These include deleting a pair of files that Jclemens protected as evidence for ArbCom, protecting my user talk to stop me restoring Echigo Mole's posts there, and blocking me for a month when Mathsci accused me of violating my topic ban (without giving me time to make a statement in the AE thread). This is concerning because MastCell's involvement in the dispute was privately requested by Mathsci: "Irrespective of Jclemens' protection, the two pages were later deleted by MastCell following my request" Said request must have been made privately because it was not anywhere public. Collect raised a related complaint here about Future Perfect. Jclemens suggested Collect's complaint be brought up for broader review, so I hope ArbCom can address both issues.

The basic problem affecting Collect and me is that an admin can be technically uninvolved, yet still use their powers to exclusively defend the interests of an editor or group of editors. MastCell has a long pattern of following Mathsci to disputes to defend him, both by arguing with Mathsci's opponents and using his admin tools. I'll present more examples if ArbCom accepts the case.

I'll summarise the other main aspects of this dispute because its complexity is one of the reasons I think it requires arbitration.

• The question of when it's permissible to restore edits by sockpuppets, as debated in the AN thread. Editors seem to be held to inconsistent standards. Collect and Nyttend were allowed to restore posts from Echigo Mole socks in their user talk, but when I did the same my user talk was protected to prevent it.

• The accusations by SilkTork, Collect and Jclemens against one of the other parties. No comment on whether the accusations are true, but a summary of the dispute needs to mention them.

• The accusation here, here, here, and here that Jclemens abused his authority as an arbitrator. No comment on this accusation either, but a few admins and other editors made it, so I think the committee should examine it.

In summary, four admins have been accused of misconduct in this dispute: Nyttend (in the AN thread), MastCell, Future Perfect and Jclemens. Therefore, I do not think this can be resolved in an RFC, and arbitration is the best option.

Comment on Jclemens' comment: the thing is happening that SightWatcher and I have worried might happen. During the review, ArbCom made it very clear their findings about me did not allege I was deliberately recruited: I got involved in R&I articles in 2010 of my own choice due to a discussion in Ferahgo's blog. This was mentioned by Roger Davies and SilkTork. I stopped my involvement in January because the topic was growing too drama-ridden. That would have been the end of my involvement in any of these disputes if not for the events that transpired following my topic ban. Apart from the Echigo Mole drama, Mathsci began claiming that the committee actually had ruled that SightWatcher and I were deliberately recruited, and SightWatcher expressed concern here that this might eventually become a sort of unofficial amendment. Now that arbitrators are talking about having ruled that I was deliberately recruited, it seems to confirm SightWatcher's fears were valid.

This is one of the reasons I care about these issues. I think it's reasonable to care that ArbCom's ruling about me doesn't become distorted by repeating an inaccurate version of it, and SightWatcher's fears this would happen evidently were justified. I don't know who I could have gone to about this besides ArbCom. If ArbCom holds it against me that I went to them, what else could I have done?--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

TrevelyanL85A2 has broken his topic ban in an extremely serious way hours after coming off a one month AE block for the same nonsense. Even in itty-bitty words of less than one syllable, fed to him by his acknowledged friends Ferhago and Occam, he cannot mention me on wikipedia. I have reported him at WP:AE. At no stage recently has TrevelyanL852 shown even the slightest (= teensiest weensiest) sign that he is interested in building an encylopedia of any kind. On wikipedia at the moment his account appears to be "disruption-only". This request touches unfinished business involving proxy-editors. The long term abusers (Echigo mole and Mikemikev) are a different and unrelated issue: see WP:LTA . Administrators at WP:AE can handle this perfectly well without Ferahgo and Occam creating more havoc on wikipedia through their disingenuous intermediaries. Mathsci (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

TDA seems to be trolling here. I assume all arbitrators will spot that immediately. Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not a good faith request but a further attempt to WP:GAME the system, a continuation of the conduct that got TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned and then blocked. This time it is worse because there have been a series of very specific warnings, not all necessarily addressed directly to TrevelyanL85A2, about proceeding in this way. The comments about MastCell above, presumably the result of off-wiki brainstorming with fellow DeviantArtists, amount to unsupported and malicious tittle-tattle.

Here, all of a sudden, TrevelyanL85A2 has found his tongue on arbcom pages; that provides a strange contrast with the stoney silence he maintained during the arbcom review when his conduct was under discussion. As far as disruption is concerned, is this request any better than Echigo mole's recent trolling RfAr? Very hard to say.

I also don't think that TrevelyanL85A2's screed above, even if prepared by his friends, bears close examination. It was after all Nobody Ent that reported TrevelyanL85A2 at WP:AE. He surely cannot have forgotten that. Nobody Ent and I are completely different people: Nobody Ent is not a sockpuppet, or even a meatpuppet, of Mathsci. Nor for that matter is Johnuniq, to whom TrevelyanL85A2 made the following inappropriate response while blocked. Mathsci (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why TrevelyanL85A2 claims this RfAr is not primarily targeting me. In his latest posting he makes specific reference to me. He also mentions SightWatcher. MastCell has now apparently been forgotten; as has TrevelyanL85A2's own extended topic ban. While blocked TrevelyanL85A2 asked for clarification of his topic ban by email. As Courcelles has disclosed on-wiki, he received a response which he now appears to be ignoring completely. Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• TDA writes, "A sock with no apparent connection to any of the people we are discussing posted a comment on Trev's page and Math removed the comment." This was a sock of Echigo mole, whose conduct was extensively discussed during the ARBR&I review (as one of the five questions). He has stalked me for 3 years: he regularly trolls on arbcom pages and on the user talk pages of the DeviantArt editors. Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was one of the socks. He was blocked by Courcelles for trying to start an arbcom case not very different from this one. Since he doesn't seem to be aware of this back history, TDA's comments seem extraordinarily unhelpful here. Mathsci (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This request does not have the remotest chance of being opened (MastCell? — even Ferahgo must have realized that was a non-starter). Why then is TDA making such strange remarks here? Is he really trying to excuse the conduct of a community banned wikistalker and serial sockpuppeteer, who spends his time lying on wikipedia? Good grief. Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• TDA seems completely unaware of the off-wiki information that was involved in the recent arbcom review. That evidence was provided privately—not quite for the purpose for which it was later used—by Ferahgo herself. Recently it was further disclosed on-wiki that off-wiki discussions with TrevelyanL85A2 and others in the DeviantArt group were occurring while TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked. Other on-wiki conduct issues after the close of the case, e.g. two editors pushing independently for exactly the same kind of meritless arbcom case concerning MastCell, have only confirmed that proxy-editing is occurring. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I have no idea what this case is meant to achieve. Somebody broke his topic ban and got sanctioned for it. Pretty clear-cut case. He made an appeal against that sanction and had it declined. Pretty clear-cut case too. Somebody was accused of illicit use of alternate accounts, and that concern was turned down by a consensus of several admins at SPI. So what. Some admins disagreed about something and handed out fishes to each other. Big deal. Somebody made not-so-constructive posts in an AE thread and got a warning for it. So, where's the beef? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

As I see it, the nexus of this dispute is R&I and the interaction between Math and Trev. It is quite clear that while Math cared nothing for other people restoring comments relating to R&I from a banned editor, he made a point of edit-warring with Trev over the issue despite repeated requests from Trev that Math stop editing his userspace. After requesting Trev ask an Arb about Math's removal of comments from Trev's talk page per WP:BAN, Math accused Trev of violating his topic ban by bringing up Math's R&I-related conduct. The restriction in this case is prohibitively restrictive as Math is free to poke at Trev repeatedly until he responds and then accuse Trev of violating the ban, which is the essence of what transpired with MastCell's block of Trev. In its wording the restriction is also unduly punitive, as it appears to me that Trev never made any comments about editor conduct that were not related to R&I so the need for that restriction is unclear. Not to mention the wording seems to say that he cannot comment on the conduct of the 1,000+ editors who have "worked on" the Race and Intelligence article. While a case is a bit much, I think the Arbs should revisit the issue of Trev's restriction and how it is worded. Any questions about MastCell's use of his tools could be discussed in a more appropriate forum such as an RfCU.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

J, it seems to me that those arguments rely heavily on innuendo and assumption of bad faith, not any real evidence. The evidence here is that Trev's objections to Math's conduct that led to Mast's block and subsequently this case were prompted by an interaction Math forced on Trev. A sock with no apparent connection to any of the people we are discussing posted a comment on Trev's page and Math removed the comment. After Trev restored the comment and requested that Math not remove the comment again, Math removed the comment again. Math complained on AN about other editors undoing his removal of these comments from their pages and accusing those people of being trolls or siding with the sock, while seemingly making an oblique reference to Trev by boasting to another editor of his "perseverance" in going after proxy-editing. Trev commented to complain about Math removing comments on his talk page as well, under the apparent impression that he was only forbidden from commenting about "conduct of editors in the topic area" as opposed to "conduct of editors who have worked in the topic area", a reasonable misunderstanding, and MastCell blocked him following another random editor reporting it without Trev having time to respond. I see no reason to believe that this is about some other random editor's agenda, as Trev did not set any of those events in motion. Unless there is some connection between Echigo mole and Occam or Ferahgo there appears to be no reason to indulge in such speculation about Trev's reasons for bringing this case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that an ArbCom case is probably not the proper venue, but there is little reason I see to expect that this is not just a mishandled attempt to address a legitimate problem. The restriction that basically lets Math repeatedly provoke Trev until he objects, allowing Math to get him blocked for responding, is obviously a problem. As I have said at AE, it is a recipe for disruption to have these one-way interaction bans. MastCell repeatedly getting involved on matters concerning Math is another problem. I find this stuff about Echigo to be a distraction from the actual problem of Math disruptively provoking Trev, using Echigo as an excuse, and then expecting the admins to just get in line and ban his opponent for responding to those provocations. The idea that someone can use WP:BAN to edit-war in another editor's userspace with that editor barred from complaining about such edit-warring is bizarre and does not seem consistent with the intent of sanctions minimizing disruption. Even further, Mast cited the edit-warring over comments by banned editors started by Math to revoke Trev's talk-page privileges. What I would like to see is for the Arbs to consider modifying the restriction on Trev as it appears to only open up room for agenda-driven disruption by Math to say Trev can't complain about Math actively interacting with him despite Trev repeatedly objecting to those interactions. But for that restriction's allowance of such behavior, this request would not exist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That someone likes to bug you and goes to other people on-wiki who may not be fond of you either is not the kind of connection I am talking about. I am talking about a connection that would somehow make this plausible as anything more than Trev responding to a situation in which he did not want to get involved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere am I trying to excuse Echigo if that is what you are suggesting Math. I am saying that I see no indication that this situation was orchestrated by anyone off-wiki as Jclemens suggested below. Unless there is some evidence that Echigo is collaborating with any of these users in a rather complex strategy to "get" you it seems more like a banned editor with a grudge against you went around stirring the pot with other editors who had difficulties with you and you stirred the pot even more to create the current situation with Mast providing cover along the way. The point I am trying to make is that I do not think Trev is trying to cause trouble with this request, but that trouble came to him. Trev had been inactive for months and was dragged into this situation by unrelated editors commenting on his talk page and your response to those comments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Math, I am aware of the review and what was noted with regards to off-wiki discussion. What I am saying is I do not see any indication that Echigo was in any way implicated as being party to any proxy-editing (I presume you would have mentioned it were that the case) and as it was actions by that banned editor, which prompted this request, any suggestion that it is about proxy-editing would seem to require real evidence. Your claim that two on-wiki actions indicate proxy-editing is not terribly persuasive given that both actions can be readily explained without any need for speculation about nefarious off-wiki activities. A sock commented at Trev's page, you edit-warred with Trev over that sock's comments and tagged the sock as belonging to Echigo mole. Trev was thus drawn into the dispute this sockmaster was creating and noticed MastCell's involvement in supporting you and openly said he thought the matter of Mast's involvement should be taken to arbitration in his appeal. A day after that suggestion was made one of Echigo's socks responded by filing such a case. It is not hard to figure out what transpired. Echigo has a serious axe to grind against you and seized on the on-wiki suggestion as a great way to annoy you. Unless you can demonstrate that Echigo actually has some connection to past proxy-editing, or that there is some actual evidence of proxy-editing in this case, and that this is not just your typical disruptive sockmaster fixated on you to the point that any little suggestion about wrong-doing related to you becomes a cause for further disruption, then the allegations about some nefarious connection between Echigo and Trev seem to be little more than innuendo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Is this in good faith? I do not have reason to suspect bad faith; rather, I say this because (1) I can't remember running into TrevelyanL85A2 before, and (2) I was named in a similar request for arbitration not long ago by someone who turned out to be a disruptive sock. If TrevelyanL85A2 be doing this in good faith, I'll make a more substantive response. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate pointed me to relevant page histories, so now I understand that this is a good faith request. I have to agree with FPaS; Arbcom seems to me to be something for big deals only, and this issue doesn't seem to be a big deal. I'm also confused why I'm named as a party, since the dispute really appears to be between Trevelyan and Mastcell, and my own situation seems to be quite peripheral. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jclemens

I'm unsure why the dispute over Mathsci's retention of data relevant to a closed case was drug into this. As can be seen by the linked discussions, he and I discussed the issue to a natural conclusion, and no further dispute resolution or sanction was sought. Several administrators disagreed with my assessment of his actions, which in turn led to some off-Wiki discussion of arbitrators as enforcers of our own decisions, known to the committee although not the other named parties, and the insight from those conversations would have prompted me to handle the situation differently in the future--I can elaborate if the rest of the committee believes appropriate. The entire situation would have been resolved sooner and with less acrimony had two of Mathsci's emails not been discarded by the committee's Foundation-provided mailing list software.

Frankly, this feels to me like more of Captain Occam's dispute-by-proxy. TrevelyanL85A2 was found in a previous case to be recruited by Occam to the R&I dispute, and one of the matters that has never been in dispute is that Mathsci has been repeatedly harassed by users sanctioned in the R&I area. My guess is that the overall effort behind this is to strip Mathsci of some of his administrative "cover". While this administrative cover was clearly evident in response, defending him against my assertions of improper use of alternate accounts for data retention at the SPI, I do not see how it is used against the encyclopedia's best interest in the wider context of Mathsci vs. banned users, which is by far the more prevalent way in which these admins act on Mathsci's behalf.

Overall, I think a motion banning TreveyanL85A2 for continuation of R&I disputes is an appropriate outcome. As I said above, while I think there were sub-optimal reactions by a number of people, the fact that no one filed any dispute resolution or sanction requests in the many weeks since these events transpired should be a good indicator to the committee that the parties involved know how to appropriately resolve conflicts without disrupting the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@TDA, if what you posted about the nucleus of this dispute was all that was in the case finding, I agree that it would be a very succinct, and likely actionable. What is your explanation for why I am being dragged in as a party, vs. just an example of Mathsci previously insisting on the right to re-remove a banned editor's contributions after an editor in good standing had reinstated them? Given this particular user's history, it does indeed smell overly fishy to me. There is an established history of a non-banned editor picking up where a banned one left off in this area (Occam, then Ferahgo), and this simply feels like more of the same to me. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

It is hard to see any merit in this case. Is TrevelyanL85A2 seriously seeking the authority to support banned users by insisting that their comments be permanently recorded on TrevelyanL85A2's talk page? I removed such a comment seven hours after the sock was indeffed (sock contribs). Nearly two days later, TrevelyanL85A2 restored the sock's comment (diff), despite the fact that the arbitration case it linked to had been deleted by Courcelles two days earlier (diff). How would keeping such comments help the encyclopedia?

Regarding the admins: there is often some tension as disagreements arise in a complex case. However, the disagreements appear to have receded, and there is no need for a topic banned user (TrevelyanL85A2) to be the one to re-open settled matters. How would a fishing expedition help the encyclopedia?

Is TrevelyanL85A2 hoping that MastCell will stop applying WP:DENY to banned users? How would that help the encyclopedia? Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I'm not sure exactly what I'm meant to respond to here. As best I can tell, TrevelyanL85A2 makes only one testable assertion: that I deleted Mathsci's userpages in response to an off-wiki request. This is categorically false. Mathsci did not request the deletion of these pages off-wiki.

• I deleted User:Alternative-mathsci/subpage in response to a {{db-u1}} speedy-deletion template (placed here). This was a basic application of this site's long-standing criteria for speedy deletion, and conducted entirely on-wiki.
• I deleted User:Aixoisie/file and User:Aixoisie/file1 in response to an on-wiki request from Mathsci. These pages were discussed in this SPI thread. Future Perfect asked Mathsci: "Do you agree those pages can be removed now?" Mathsci responded: "yes if you can delete these pages (...), that would be very kind." Subsequently, I deleted the pages in response to that explicit on-wiki request from Mathsci, as the logs and timestamps will attest.

I'm at a loss for why TrevelyanL85A2 overlooked the obvious fact that these requests were made on-wiki. I don't see much else of substance to respond to in his complaint. MastCell  18:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/1/0)

• Recused, obviously. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Waiting for more statements, but on first view, I have to agree with Fut.Perf, that I don't think this requires our attention at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see a case to be answered here. Decline. SirFozzie (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Awaiting more statements, but I wonder what TrevelyanL85A2 is trying to accomplish here; site=banning him was voted down in the hopes he would do something productive, and not proxy the same disputes. As it stands, I'm not sure he's doing anything but that. Courcelles 21:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Decline but I have to advise TrevelyanL85A2 that if your behaviour doesn't change, I suspect it is only a matter of time before you lose your editing privileges. Courcelles 00:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. I see nothing in this situation warranting our intervention. (There are some situations where one might possibly argue for shades of gray in how to handle the contributions of a banned user—compare my observations here—but I don't see the issues raised in this request as comparable.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Decline Hersfold non-admin 13:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Decline Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Decline  Roger Davies 06:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)