Revision as of 09:43, 5 November 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.

Race and intelligence 2

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Mathsci
• The Devil's Advocate
• Zeromus1
• Collect
• MastCell
• Timotheus Canens
• Future Perfect at Sunrise
• NuclearWarfare
• Nyttend
• Wee Curry Monster

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
• Administrators Noticeboard request - 3 June 2012
• Arbitration Enforcement (AE) request - 6 June 2012
• AE request - 12 June 2012
• AE request 22 September 2012
• AE request - 22 October 2012

Statement by Cla68

In the May 2012 modification to the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, Mathsci was admonished for BATTLEFIELD conduct. The conduct has continued and has caused unnecessary disruption. Unfortunately, Mathsci's conduct has been enabled by the actions of a few administrators.

Evidence in the case was presented that Mathsci had been wikihounded by a now banned editor. Since the case closed, administrators, notably Future Perfect at Sunrise, have done a good job at reverting edits made by the banned editor and blocking the IPs used for the edits. Nevertheless, Mathsci has repeatedly reinserted himself into the conflict with the banned editor, including reverting comments on editor's talk pages, then requesting administrator intervention when editors disagree with his actions. In the AN thread linked above, he complained about an administrator (Nyttend) who objected to his conduct. Although Mathsci has stated he will no longer edit the Race and Intelligence articles, he still takes an active role in policing them and pursuing involved editors with which he does not agree. In the AE requests linked to above, evidence was presented that he has wikihounded The Devil's Advocate. Collect was formally warned when he had done nothing more than criticize Mathsci's actions, and the warning was logged in the case sanctions section.

The most recent AE request was closed yesterday. Mathsci opened the request after interjecting himself in an unrelated AE request in which The Devil's Advocate was involved. Evidence was then presented in that request that Mathsci was mischaracterizing editor's actions and using their disagreement with his interpretation of an ArbCom action in order to push for their sanction. During the request, Mathsci selectively reverted a suspected banned edit from my user talk page. When I complained, he again used the tactic of saying that I was violating an ArbCom mandate and pushed for my sanction (a debate between I and Mathsci in my evidence section was hatted by Future Perfect at Sunrise). Once I realized that he was using a baiting/bear poking tactic with me that he had used before, as the above threads illustrate, I provided evidence of it (all the links/diffs are in that evidence). The evidence includes a link to an AE action that Mathsci attempted to initiate against me for disagreeing with him, which Future Perfect at Sunrise speedily closed. Five minutes later, Wee Curry Monster hatted my evidence section, then, about an hour later, Timotheus Canens imposed one-way interaction bans on me, The Devil's Advocate, and Zeromus1 and closed the request without allowing time for the other admins who had commented to comment on the new evidence. In a similar example, one of the AE requests linked above, MastCell decided to block an editor before that editor had even responded to the AE request. As far as I know, I have never edited the Race and Intelligence topic area.

Mathsci states repeatedly that the stress from the Race and Intelligence topic area has caused him heart trouble and other kinds of hardship. Yet, he repeatedly involves himself in pushing for administrative action against involved editors, actions against banned editors, and aggressively pursuing administrative action against editors who have concerns with his behavior. If he really does have a heart problem, I believe some intervention may be necessary before he harms himself, which is of course more serious than the disruption he is causing with his continued, BATTLEFIELD conduct. For example, since the imposing of the interaction ban yesterday, when The Devil's Advocate asked the sanctioning administrator for clarification on the admin's talk page Mathsci responded with a confrontational comment. Mathsci responded to this case request by filing another AE request.

If the case is accepted, I believe the evidence will show that:

• Mathsci is treating the issue with the banned user as an ongoing battle that he must win through his own, constant, personal intervention
• Mathsci wikihounds, hectors, baits, and pokes editors who disagree with or criticize his actions
• Two or three admins have been effectively rubber-stamping his AE requests, (such as MastCell approving that block before the target even had a chance to defend himself) and intimidating or unfairly sanctioning editors who get in the way, such as the formal warning to Collect, almost blocking The Devil's Advocate based on shaky evidence, then imposing one-way interaction bans instead of mutual interaction bans

• I'm kind of confused as to how someone could counsel one of the parties here for being too aggressive, yet at the same time say that only a one-way ban is better. If one checks the AN and AE links above in the "prior dispute resolution" attempts section, plus some supporting statements by others here on this page, I think one will note that one of the parties here is extremely agressive and confrontational in pursuit of editors with whom he disagrees. AE admins, please compare the measured, calm responses from The Devil's Advocate, Zeromus, and SightWatcher on this page with the behavior of the other party. I believe one of the reasons that Treveylan was banned was because he violated his one-way interaction ban to warn TDA of the wikihounding he should expect from having disagreed with Mathsci somewhere, a warning which appears to have come true. Cla68 (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Responses to Arbitrators

• SirFozzie, as far as I know, I haven't filed any other ArbCom requests or AE actions against Mathsci. If I have, someone please point it out to me. I believe most, if not almost all, of the AN and AE requests linked to above were initiated by Mathsci. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I understand what you mean. The problem is, in the most recent AE request, Mathsci had almost convinced the participating admins into blocking The Devil's Advocate (TDA), even though the evidence Mathsci presented had serious problems when examined in any great detail. Somebody has to speak up when someone is about to be unfairly trampled. And yes, I do believe the evidence shows that that was the case (see TDA's statement below, which I think is fairly clear). Is it always fair or accurate to label the people who speak up as holding grudges? Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• AGK, I agree with you. If interaction bans are going to be used as a reactive remedy for AE requests, then, as this diff shows, they should be mutual, not one way. Cla68 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Committee, based on this, do you think it might be a good idea to ask Mathcsi to stay away from Spar-Stangled at least until the SPI is concluded? I think labeling someone's user page as a banned editor's sock when an SPI has so far been inconclusive lends support to two of the allegations I made above about Mathsci's behavior. Cla68 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• Courcelles, as several of you have noticed, Mathsci appears to be somehwat obsessed with the ongoing battle between him and this banned editor. I believe that one-way interaction bans are enabling this behavior, because it appears to be granting Mathsci license to seek sanctions against anyone he perceives of getting in his way in this ongoing game of wits he and the other editor are involved in. Make the bans two-way, and I believe Mathsci will be more inclined to stay out of the way and allow Misplaced Pages's interested administrators to take care of the issues for him, which they appear, based on their comments on this page, more than willing and able to do. Besides, as the diff I presented above of Mathsci confronting, perhaps even taunting TDA, shows, Mathsci has gamed the one-way ban. Cla68 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by User:Collect

As noted, I have essentially zero connection to the R&I controversy, and found the "warning" issued to me to be incomprehensible. I would leave it to individual editors to try explaining precisely why it was made at the time, though I suspect Cla68 may, indeed, be correct in his assessment thereof. If any motions are made, I would appreciate one removing my name from the "sanctions" page at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

TC misstates the actual facts behind the "warning" since my posts regarding a case were on point, and actually further demonstrate litigiousness on the part of Mathsci, and had absolutely no connection whatsoever with R&I at all -- in fact the use of such a "warning" is against Misplaced Pages policy that some actual rationale be given other than "he attacked a person who was routinely attacking others." In any event - the presence of my name on the R&I board is not only risible, it is a sign that the complaint here about that editor is proper and well-founded, alas. BTW, thet TC finds that having one's name mentioned in a case is a "transparently weak justification" for giving a comment is also risible utterly. That sort of claim would mean that one could say anything about anyone at all and charge then with a "transparently weak justification" when they dare to give a comment. I find such a claim to be contrary to the five pillars of Misplaced Pages ab initio - the aim is to edit in a collaborative and collegial manner, not to charge then with "transparently weak justification" for daring to post where their name has already been brought up. Cheers.

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

I have no idea why I have been named as a party, my only role in the matter was to hat a thread with a suggestion that Cla68 drop the stick. He had been warned about his comments and as a neutral 3rd party who unfortunately happened by, it seemed obvious to this bystander he seemed to have a fixation on Mathsci, for what seemed a bizarre reason to me (ie that Mathsci following policy was somehow involved in a vendetta against a banned user). My only motivation in doing so was to try and stop an editor who I previously thought of as a good content creator, self-destructing and being sanctioned. Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered, I would urge arbcom not to take this on as a waste of everyone's time. Cla68 received more than fair warning where his conduct was headed and I am unsurprised it ended as it did. A good close in my book, lets not waste any more editing time on this drama fest. Remember the encyclopedia we're supposed to be building people? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

An addendum resulting from a conversation with Cla68 yesterday evening. See , where I invited anyone who thought my intervention inappropirate, including Cla68, to simply revert me. I believe I made it plain why I hatted the conversation, that I considered Cla68 had clearly lost perspective and appeared to have a fixation on Mathsci. From a personal perspective, it saddens me to see an editor who I considered in good standing at WP:MILHIST for his work on WWII self-destructing like this. Please could someone hit him with a clue stick and shut down this drama fest quickly. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Ditto the first half of WCM's first sentence; I'm quite confused. I've never even read a summary of the original race and intelligence case; I assume that it's something about an alleged correlation between people of some races being more or less intelligent than people of other races, and if that be the issue, I've never edited anything close to that. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Why, oh why can't people just shut the f... up?

This filing is a breach of the ban just imposed, and I hope that arbitrators will have the sense to decline it speedily. There is a difference between an appeal (which of course Cla is entitled to file, on AE or here), and this kind of request for a full case. An appeal would be narrowly restricted in scope to discussing the justification of this particular sanction, and would involve only Cla and the administrator(s) who imposed it. But what he's asking for instead is a whole big case with everybody involved, with the scope of discussing not Cla's sanction, but Mathsci and everybody else. Mathsci and everybody else hacking on each other again and again is precisely what these sanctions were meant to stop, so no, "Cla must not discuss Mathsci" means precisely what it says, and it does include Arbcom pages.

For the same reason, I hope Arbcom members will leave no doubt about it that this request is also not a free pass for the other sanctioned editors to misuse it for resuming their behaviour here. Please close this down quickly. Every day this whole ugliness is allowed to keep boiling is a day too much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: At this time, I strongly oppose the idea brought up by some arbs, of making the interaction ban two-way, for two reasons:

1. It unduly and unnecessary interferes with the discretion of administrators at AE. If the committee trusts us with administrating discretionary sanctions, it should not arbitrarily override admins' decisions without good reason. Good reason, in this case, would be concrete evidence – and not just somebody's guesswork – that the one-way interaction ban is unworkable. That would be the case if Mathsci were seen unduly taking advantage of the situation, e.g. by initiating unwanted contact with the other parties, hounding them, etc. Such evidence does not exist, because since the AE decision Mathsci evidently has not engaged in any contacts with Cla68 or any of the others beyond this process, which was initiated by Cla68, not by him. For now, let's see how Mathsci behaves when left alone. If and when he becomes a problem, that can be swiftly dealt with.
2. Such an add-on sanction would effectively reward Cla68's misuse of the Arbcom process in filing this case. What we have here is a pattern that I'm sure we've all seen in other cases before, and it needs to be stopped: (1) Editor A is engaged in a pattern of inappropriate conflict with editor B. (2) Editor A gets an interaction ban against B. (3) Instead of disengaging from B as intended, A files an Arbcom case against him. (4) As a result, A now gets a free ticket out of jail: the Arbcom process offers him a privileged forum where he can continue exactly what he was asked to stop – pursuing his conflict with B –, at least for the week or so until case acceptance/dismissal, if not for the whole duration of a case; moreover, he gains immunity from administrative enforcement because the admins who imposed the sanctions will now be listed as "parties" to an Arbcom case (and other previously uninvolved admins will be unwilling to do anything for fear of interfering with Arbcom). Finally, while A runs only a small risk of ending up with a heavier sanction than the one he already has, with only a bit of luck he may end up with the satisfaction of having his opponent sanctioned too.

The only reasonable course of action against this pattern is for Arbcom to make it a rule that such case filings in breach of an existing interaction ban be thrown out summarily and speedily. Of course people must have a right of appeal, but an appeal is something different from what happened here. An interaction ban does not mean: please shift your conflict with editor B to another, more formal venue, such as Arbcom. What an interaction ban means is: you have no business pursuing conflicts with B at all, anywhere. "Disengage" means just that: disengage. (Or, more directly: "shut up" means just that, "shut up".) Arbs, please restore some sanity here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Update re. the new motion: as stated before, and echoing in part what TC and Heim are saying, I continue to be opposed to this, and in fact enraged by it. You are not only unnecessarily and unjustly messing with the AE sanctions (that's not really the point, and note that these aren't "my" sanctions); you are in fact systematically counteracting and sabotaging them, through the very process we are seeing here. The AE sanctions were put in place in order to grant Mathsci – a harassment victim who has obviously been at the end of his tether – some much-needed respite. Instead of allowing this to take effect as intended, i.e. for him to be finally left alone, you have turned it into its very opposite. You, through your decision to allow this farce of of case request to continue, have been dragging Mathsci (and everybody else) through another weeks-long hell of stress, bitterness and accusations. You could have dismissed this thing within 48 hours; instead, through your own laziness, you allowed it to drag on for 12 fucking days, and now, after 12 days, you are adding yet another level of stress on top, with no end in sight. At this point, the fact that Mathsci, during these 12 days, let his stress level show and acted less than optimally, by continuing to engage in lengthy and unnecessary discussion, seems to provide much of the alleged motivation for claiming that this added sanction is necessary. Arbs, you are sanctioning somebody for disruption that you yourselves have caused. This whole mess is your fault. Adding the disgrace of an unnecessary personal sanction on top of all this aggravation is only the cherry on top of the cake. What you are doing here is deeply unethical. Fuck you, Arbcom.

That said, one practical thing: Does "not interacting" with the other parties include that Mathsci will also be prohibited from doing what originally triggered this whole thing, remove postings of banned socks from other people's talk pages? Because if yes, you are not only negating the effect of your very own previous decisions, you are also granting the banned user some wonderful free space for continuing his harassment socking, in total immunity. Don't tell me that is what you intend. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@ErrantX: Yes, of course it would be desirable if Mathsci could also finally be relaxed enough to step away from things. But imposing that upon him as a sanction (i.e. a "punishment", because whether you call it that or not, that's what these sanctions are) is the worst possible way of achieving that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

For a variety of reasons I don't really want to participate here, it gives me a headache just thinking about having to deal with even more of this drama, but I think we should all understand how this recent situation went down. After weeks of me having no contact with Mathsci, not even so much as speaking his name as I recall, he suddenly decided to accuse me of tag-teaming and meatpuppetry without a shred of evidence at an AE case where I was not involved, an AE case that concerned an article I have not even edited. I responded to ask him not to make such serious claims without evidence and he reacts to that civil request by bringing up all the garbage from the request for amendment that ended weeks before his comment and making a bunch of other bizarre accusations. At one point he accuses me of putting forward a "grotesque conspiracy theory" that he was lying about his heart condition as part of some "morbid game" on my part, despite me plainly acknowledging his health problems in the comment directly preceding that one. In fact, what I stated was that he keeps pursuing me at multiple noticeboards and I did not in any way try to cast doubt on the seriousness of his health issues.

After his attempt to hijack that case didn't pan out, Mathsci initiated an AE case against me and Zeromus claiming it was enforcing the new remedy on restoring edits from banned editors, even though neither of us had done such a thing. One of the two diffs concerning me was me clarifying on Zeromus' talk page that the new restriction does not prohibit interactions with any editors, including Trev, after Mathsci claimed it did. Mathsci claimed this was me encouraging people to talk to Trev. The other diff he cited was a comment from several weeks ago at the request for amendment where I stated that Trev had requested via e-mail that I file an RfC/U against Mathsci, but that before Trev even made this suggestion I had already considered such action may prove necessary at some point should Mathsci's conduct continue unabated. Mathsci claimed that diff showed me threatening to file an RfC/U on Trev's behalf. Neither of these explanations were accurate descriptions of my comments. Beyond that, Mathsci left additional comments making all sorts of accusations about harassment and proxy-editing that he made no effort to substantiate with actual evidence.

This was just forum-shopping after Mathsci's numerous attempts to get me sanctioned during the request for amendment didn't pan out, plain and simple. In the AE case I provided the very same diff above demonstrating that Mathsci was the one who started this recent mess by trying to hijack another AE case to go after me on completely frivolous claims of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry. For any admin to take Mathsci's vexatious, evidence-starved request for enforcement seriously was a major lapse in judgment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's clear things up a bit here. The only reason I mentioned Trev's request for an RfC/U was to be clear that if I should pursue such a measure in the future it would be because I felt it was necessary because of the conduct I had witnessed and not because anyone else requested it. I told Zeromus that the recently-passed restriction did not prohibit interactions with banned editors or Trev because other editors were seemingly trying to mislead Zeromus into thinking that interacting with Trev or banned editors was a violation of the restriction and thus could lead to sanctions. That is essentially the whole basis for the indefinite one-way interaction ban.

While I don't expect or want an arbitration case on this matter, would the Arbs consider putting forward a motion on this interaction ban, either to lift it or make it mutual? Honestly, I think any sort of interaction ban was pointless as I am more than happy to ignore Mathsci as I did in the weeks preceding this latest flare-up and in the numerous instances before that where he showed up at unrelated noticeboards to go after me. Hell, I ignored the vast majority of his comments about me on the request for amendment as well. Still, if Mathsci was just prevented from interacting with me as well I would be willing to accept the sanction, though I would prefer if it had a time limit rather than being indefinite.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Future and Tim are exhibiting questionable judgment in their defense of the one-way nature of the interaction ban. The claim that they supported allowing Mathsci to interact with us when we could not reciprocate because they wanted "to see how he behaves if and when he is finally left alone" seems to be completely ignoring my statements and evidence at the AE case where I plainly said that I had ignored Mathsci for weeks until he tried to hijack an AE case to go after me with spurious accusations (see evidence above). In particular, Future had previously suggested that Mathsci had followed me to unrelated articles in an inappropriate manner so his comments are even more questionable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Elen, I think we can safely say that the star-spangled account is somebody's sock, most likely Echigo mole, and without question the comment below is just disruptive trolling on an arbitration page. The last thing alone is enough to justify removing the comment and blocking the account if you aren't yet satisfied that this is Echigo mole. Knowing who the account belongs to is more of a formality at this point and doesn't justify keeping such absurd accusations on an arbitration page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

A little less conversation, a little more action please. All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Future and Tim aren't relenting on their position in spite of the evidence I provided above that directly contradicts their alleged basis for supporting the restriction and in spite of my subsequent response to them noting that evidence. Would they please explain why they apparently think the evidence above doesn't point to a likelihood that Mathsci will abuse a one-way restriction? I mean, the whole reason Mathsci is going after me is because I provided evidence and argumentation that he had abused another one-way restriction with Trev in order to get that editor indeffed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

@AGK If your suggestion to not amend the one-way interaction ban at this time is referring to Mathsci's professed intention to stop contributing then I find that acceptable, but if he should return to editing I would very much not want a situation where Mathsci is free to confront and provoke me as he sees fit, while I am unable to report him for it. The admins at AE should have been more than familiar with the evidence that Mathsci was initiating incidents with me as evidence was presented right at the outset of the AE case and another was familiar with a previous such incident. Please make it mutual.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci plainly stated in this very discussion that he had talked to Calisber about exercising his right to vanish and made numerous other comments suggesting that he was going to stop contributing altogether. I fail to see how I have misrepresented anything.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I commented on the RFAR talk page a few hours ago in response to Future's claims about this case not being used to address the sanction in question to clarify that I had been doing just that and asking him to address what I have said in this case. Mathsci commented just two hours later above my comment in a way that made it look like I was responding to him so I moved my comment up so it would be clear that was not the case. Unfortunately, the diff makes it look like I moved Mathsci's comment instead, but I moved my comment up to avoid the appearance that I was responding to Mathsci.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

NW, you are a named party to the case and were specifically involved in the AE case that led to the one-way interaction bans that are being disputed. I see nothing in the statement by Zeromus that is fundamentally different in nature from what Cla68 was saying and the Arbs plainly stated that Cla68's comments were appropriate. Seems to me that it is wildly inappropriate and completely inconsistent with WP:ADMINACCT for a WP:INVOLVED admin such as yourself to be collapsing relevant statements and evidence in a de-facto ArbCom appeal of an AE case where you were pushing for sanctions at the duplicitous request of an opposing party. Please undo your action and formally recuse yourself from your clerking duties with regards to the case. Let uninvolved Arbs or clerks handle these types of dubious complaints.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The comment Mathsci was complaining about directly mentioned his conduct towards me as a basis for changing the one-way interaction bans to mutual interaction bans. It did not actually involve any personal attacks as the claims about Mathsci's conduct towards me were backed up by diffs and everything else was quite civil. Mathsci was making a spurious claim of personal attacks to get a WP:INVOLVED admin to redact evidence of Mathsci's misconduct towards me.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting for the record the comments Mathsci contributed to this case that he has now removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Fozzie, shouldn't the wording be essentially the same as that used by Tim? That way there would be no confusion about whether the same terms apply to Mathsci's interactions with us that apply to our interactions with him.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Brad, the case you cited does not seem that compelling. In that case, the other party was still "urged to continue to avoid any unnecessary interaction" with the sanctioned party and that apparently means the other party had already been avoiding interactions with the sanctioned party. So, that does not appear to support the argument for a one-way interaction ban in this case as it was de-facto mutual even if one of the parties was not formally sanctioned. Even worse in this case is the fact that Mathsci is actually the one who initiated this whole recent debacle after weeks of no interaction between me and him. How anyone can look at that diff understanding that this was after weeks of no interaction and conclude that Mathsci is the only one who didn't need to be subject to an interaction ban is absolutely mind-boggling.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Zeromus1

I know I'm expected to provide a statement here, but I won't be able to if I'm not allowed to comment on the case's other parties. I assume interaction bans have an exception for commenting on arbitration requests in which I'm a party, especially as The Devil's Advocate already has done so.

I think that Arbcom should accept this case, but it should be called something other than Race and Intelligence II. A lot of the editors involved, such as Nyttend and Collect, appear to have not edited articles in the R&I topic area. The focus of Cla68's complaint is Mathsci's apparent battleground attitude, and the way admins seem to enable it by sanctioning any editor who Mathsci reports without carefully examining the situation. If this is the case, then it can't be resolved at AE, because the way AE requests are handled is part of the problem. But the problem also applies to more topic areas than R&I, so if Arbcom accepts the case its name should reflect that.

In this amendment request made by The Devil's Advocate, nine editors commented that this was something which Arbcom should address, most of them editors who have not participated in R&I articles as far as I know. But Arbcom chose to not address it, and instead addressed the (mostly) separate issue of Echigo Mole's socking. In that amendment request, some people also commented that if Arbcom did not address the concerns of the community, this conflict would likely continue to expand and come back to Arbcom again and again. That appears to be what's happening now. Considering the multiple arbitration requests there have been about this conflict already, I think Arbcom should carefully consider, can the community really be expected to resolve it without arbitration? And if so, where? (Certainly not at AE.) Up to this point, the effect of Arbcom's reluctance to take on this conflict seems to be that there's a new arbitration request about it from a new group of editors every few months, and I see no reason to assume that would be different in the future. Zeromus1 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I am a little troubled by Mathsci's comment here, "I will not respond now except privately through you or other AE administrators." This comment appears to be saying he can get AE admins to post what he wants in this thread by contacting them privately. Isn't part of the point of AE that admins there are supposed to be impartial judges of the situation? The fact that some admins are willing to post what he tells them to seems to imply they aren't truly impartial, which might explain what Cla68 has complained about that they effectively rubber-stamped his AE report about us. Zeromus1 (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci, how am I "twisting your words"? What does it mean for you to say you are "responding privately through AE administrators", except that you privately tell them what to post here? Zeromus1 (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I recently took a look at the past amendment requests listed at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence, and apparently this conflict has been ongoing for almost two years. The behavior in question and one of the parties never changes, although the group of editors that he's in conflict with has changed a few times. This issue was brought before ArbCom in November 2010: February 2011: August 2011: September 2011: , and July 2012. That doesn't count the review that happened this spring, which would be a sixth time, and also doesn't include the dozen or more AE threads. The issue that's before ArbCom now has come before them an average of once every four months for the past two years. I think it's apparent that if the committee decides to take no action, this cycle will continue indefinitely, either involving the current group of editors or a different group. I think the committee should carefully consider whether allowing that to happen really is what they want. Zeromus1 (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci, you point out here that most of the editors you've been in conflicts with have eventually quit the project or been blocked, and I can see what you're saying is right. But what I'm saying is that these conflicts always seem to go the same way. First you choose an editor you don't like and follow them to various unrelated parts of the project. In the case of the Devil's Advocate, you followed him to unrelated threads at WQA BLPN AE and brought him and me up in an AE thread that had nothing to do with us or you. After a while, whoever you're doing this to starts to react, and then they get sanctioned or blocked by AE or ArbCom. That's what happened to me, The Devil's Advocate, Cla68, and TrevelyanL85A2. (Here is where TrevelyanL85A2 explained how this happened in his own case.) A lot of the time admins seem to think the easiest way to resolve the conflict is by sanctioning whatever current editor your conflict is with, and maybe ArbCom thinks that also. But what can be seen with a big-picture perspective is that this does nothing to prevent the same cycle repeating with whatever editor you choose next. If it were enough to always sanction the other party, and just give you warnings and admonishments, the same cycle wouldn't have repeated with at least eight different editors over the past two years. Zeromus1 (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You've challenged me to provide diffs of this in regard to the other editors you brought up. I'll present some evidence about it if ArbCom accepts this as a case, but I'm not sure if this is the right time or place to present it. Zeromus1 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by TC

I broadly agree with Fut. Perf., and do not have much to add to his comment. I'll just add a few points:

• Collect was warned because he hijacked an AE appeal by TrevelyanL85A2 with unrelated complaints on Mathsci with a transparently weak justification (that his name was mentioned in passing in the appeal). He was free to start a new complaint on Mathsci, but not derail an existing one.
• As to the sanction on Cla68, AE surely has the inherent power to sanction editors for disruption on its own case pages. Cla68 was already warned by Fut.Perf. to disengage; when he refused to heed that warning, resorting to sanctions is necessary to control the disruption on the AE process.
• As to the one-way nature of the interaction bans, I'll just quote Fut. Perf.'s comment on his talk page, which is exactly my intent:

Well, I'd say to test that we first need to see how he behaves if and when he is finally left alone. If he misuses that then, we can still add something to the sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, @Penwhale: If you are expressing an opinion on the merits of the case ("which is odd", "one-sided IBAN never seems to work"), I don't think it's appropriate for you to continue acting in a clerk capacity. T. Canens (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fut.Perf.'s additional comment, especially his first point. If arbcom is going to modify AE sanctions based on nothing more than a hunch that the particular sanction employed may not work, then the word "discretion" becomes meaningless. I, for one, would certainly reconsider my participation at AE if the committee is going to micromanage every sanction applied by motion. Why spend time reading and evaluating AE requests when arbcom will just substitute their judgment for yours instead? T. Canens (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

@NE: I don't mind being overturned. What I do mind is being overturned on a flimsy rationale that "two-way ban is more likely to be successful". In handing out the one-way bans, I decided that there's a good chance that one-way bans would be sufficient to address the issue. No arb has yet bothered to explain exactly why in this case a one-way ban is so unlikely to be successful as to be outside my discretion, or why the fact that I'm planning to keep an eye on it and make it two-way if necessary is not enough to address any potential for gaming from the one-way ban. All I see are generalized statements about how one-way bans are easily gamed (without any explanation how Mathsci is likely to game it) and are less likely to be successful than two-way bans. Well, arsenic trioxide is a deadly poison, but is also be used to treat certain diseases. If this committee is going to modify AE actions based on essentially nothing more than a collective hunch, then it can enforce its own decisions. T. Canens (talk) 11:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This will be, I think, my last comment on this request. It's long, but I think that is necessary to fully explain my position in this case since some people, including a couple of arbitrators I greatly respect, seem to have misunderstood the reasons for my disagreement. I'll first explain more on why I opted for a one-way ban originally. Then I'll explain why I object so strongly to the committee making the ban two-way, which actually do not have a lot to do with my views on whether a one-way or a two-way ban is more preferable. I agree that reasonable admins can and do disagree over that question; I would have objected equally strongly had another admin imposed a two-way ban and the committee considered a motion to make it one-way, even though I prefer a one-way ban myself.

First, on one-way bans versus two-way bans. I know, of course, that one-way interaction bans are prone to gaming. Most of the interaction bans I have issued are two-way bans precisely for this reason. But most of those bans also involve editors in contentious topic areas such as the Arab-Israeli conflict. and they would have been especially prone to gaming if they were one-way. The situation between Mathsci and the other three are, in my view, rather different. A good part of it has relative little to do with the sort of entrenched real-world disputes that characterizes ARBPIA or ARBAA2 or ARBEE cases, but rather has a significant personal character.

It should be clear from the interaction ban how I assessed the relative blame among the parties to the interaction ban. I gather from the comments below that many arbitrators also agree with this view. Given that assessment, I concluded that the equitable solution would be a one-way interaction ban. I then considered the likelihood of gaming. I looked at Mathsci's history, and see no significant likelihood that he would game it, especially since he surely knows that first, the editors on the other side of the interaction ban would not hesitate to bring any case of gaming to our attention, and second, we would have little patience should he attempt to game the ban. I concluded that it is preferable to try out the less restrictive and more equitable solution first, because I believe that there's a good chance it will work given the particular circumstances of this case; if that did not work out, a two-way ban can easily be applied.

I should emphasize that the specifics of this case are crucial to my decision. The chance that a sanction will be gamed depends not only on how easily it can be gamed, but equally on how likely the particular user at issue will attempt to game a sanction. This is why I'm particularly disappointed that no arbitrator has pointed to any evidence that Mathsci has gamed, or is likely to game, the one-way ban beyond the ban's general "gameability".

Second, on the reasons for my strong objection to the proposed motion. Brad and AGK, I'm not taking the motion as a reflection on me personally - I've been active at AE for quite some time now, some of my sanctions had been modified by the committee or on appeal at AE before, and if I were to take it personally I'd be out of this AE business a long time before now. This is the first case - in fact, I believe the first time in my Misplaced Pages career - that I felt the need to write something even remotely resembling what I wrote here. It is not something I would do lightly.

When AE admins signed up for this thankless task that involves dealing with conflicts in the worst areas of this project, we are promised that we'd be allowed to use our discretion to solve the problems we face. Of course, AE admins are "not free, like a loose cannon, to inflict indiscriminate damage whenever announce that acting in capacity" (Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 367 (Stewart, J., dissenting)). However, if we take our time to read the AE request, look up the diffs, evaluate the conduct of the parties, and come up with a decision that in our view will solve the problem, we are promised, it will not be disturbed lightly. Previous arbcoms took great pains to emphasize this point, twice passing motions that accorded special protections to AE actions. Admins who overturn AE actions without a clear-cut consensus can - and indeed have been - desysopped. When a sanction is appealed at AE, we always accorded significant deference to the judgment of the original AE admin, and we have upheld sanctions even when some of us - in some cases, even when most of us - thought that their solution is better than the solution chosen by the original admin. We understand that different admins may come up with different solutions to the same problem, we know that reasonable admins can differ in their evaluation of the different solutions, and we allow our fellow admin, who took the time to carefully examine the original case, to try their solution first.

That brings me to the reason why I vehemently disagree with the proposed motion: I strongly believe that it is an utterly unnecessary and completely unwarranted interference with the discretion of AE administrators - the discretion that, as I explained above, is crucial to making AE functional, effective, and worthwhile to the admins who spend considerable time evaluating requests. No arbitrator has yet explained why a one-way ban that will be swiftly made two-way should gaming occur is so inferior an option compared to a two-way ban that it required the intervention of the committee. For it to substitute its judgment for ours, simply because the solution we picked might not work, devalues the work of AE admins and will only encourage meritless appeals. These appeals not only consume the time of AE admins who had to respond and defend their decision, but also take days or even weeks to resolve. As a recent case on point, it took the committee a ridiculous 13 days to reject an second appeal of a discretionary sanction when the first appeal was declined a mere 4 days before the second appeal was filed. This committee pays lip service to supporting AE admins, but its actual actions and inactions in fact substantially limit the discretion necessary for AE to properly function, and greatly undermine the effectiveness of AE admins. As much as I hate to say this, if this is how this committee "supports" the administrators enforcing its decisions, then it can enforce its own decisions as far as I am concerned. T. Canens (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by {Party 10}

Statement by {Party 11}

Statement by Count Iblis

So, what is this dispute about? Count Iblis (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, so if I understand it correctly, your involvement in the topic area as far as editing articles is concerned, is minimal; the dispute is primarily about dealing with banned editors like when they post on user talk pages as happened in the recent incident? Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This can also be handled using a sort of general sanctions system

The problem is caused by having to deal with socks. One can then impose restrictions on all editors on how they are allowed to deal with suspected socks in this topic area. One can restrict all editors to only use email to notify one or more admins (appointed by ArbCOm for this task) about suspected socks, one can restrict everyone from reverting talk page comments made by suspected socks. Also one should advice editors to keep discussions about possible socks on-wiki limited as much as possible, so as to not compromize any investigations going on behind the scene. This can be mentioned on a general sanctions notification on the talk pages of all the articles in this topic area. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Question and comments by TheRedPenOfDoom

I thought the filer was indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, User:Mathsci, broadly construed, anywhere on Misplaced Pages. You may appeal this ban at AE or to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/CA. This does not appear to be either of the approved forums for addressing the filers concerns.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is the standard procedure, then fine. By the wording of the notice, however, the filing here seems to be jumping to one of the most vexatious methods of interacting in an attempt to bypass the AE sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I support the analysis and comments of Fut.Perf. That this has been allowed to linger in a broad manner and not merely been swiftly shut down or limited to a review of Cla's ban is (yet another) pretty poor reflection on the process here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17

@RedPen, this seems to be an appropriate venue for the filer, despite the nominal restriction. Arbitration enforcement was tried (and failed, in the filer's view), and this isn't a request for clarification or an amendment. Ed  23:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

Red Pen seems to point out a technical flaw in the filing that I'll defer to Arbcom on depending on how rigidly they want to interpret the rules. That said, I think the Committee should just make it so IBans done under this case are mutual, not unilateral and that only the individual upon whom the ban is personally placed may appeal the ban. This would prevent professional advocates or opposing parties from gaming the system to negate the effect of the decision. MBisanz 00:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Rather than finding matters than might need arbitration, those interested in Mathsci should empirically determine whether any perceived battlefield conduct would be apparent if Mathsci were left alone. Mathsci only commented on Cla68 because the latter chose to make a statement at AE (diff—a complaint that Mathsci had removed a message from a banned user at Cla68's talk). That statement followed a comment at the same AE made by Cla68 two days earlier with the implication that Mathsci's behavior should be examined (diff). It may be the case that a different strategy for dealing with socks should be employed, but blaming the victim is never helpful, and WP:DENY is the best strategy. Particularly given the history, why would anyone consider that the removal of "a harmless remark" warranted a statement at AE? Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

Following comments of Newyorkbrad here and on his talk page, I have shortened my comments to include only the main points

This request has not been made in good faith and is tenuously related to WP:ARBR&I, despite the title. It has been made when I was known to be in ill health. It includes claims that reverting or making an SPI report on a banned wikihounder (with serious outing issues) is a form of battle. It has not been used as an appeal of AE sanctions to higher authorities by the sanctioned parties, Cla68, The Devil's Advocate and Zeromus1. It has been used for making personal attacks on me, unrelated to the RfAr. In particular I have been blamed for sanctions or bans proposed, discussed and enacted by arbitrators and administrators. The personal attacks have been accompanied by demands for sanctions on me, which are unjustified, would encourage the banned wikihounder and penalise me for his misconduct. Admins FPaS, MC, TC and NW were listed as parties although clearly not WP:INVOLVED. Mathsci (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the proposed motion

No concrete jusitification has been given for imposing sanctions on me. There has been no disruptive conduct, no enabling of banned editors, no attempts to start processes unduly against other users. A small number of arbitrators have suggested hypothetical possible "gaming of the system" at some future time. No evidence has been produced in my case to suggest that would happen. On the contrary the three sanctioned editors have gamed the systeme here by making unfounded and escalating personal attacks on me, violating their AE sanctions. None of them has appealed those sanctions here, which were imposed because of specific edits. Cla68 has argued that the wikihounding by Ehcigo mole does not happen and has suggested that on the contrary I have hounded Echigo mole and his 60 odd sockpuppets. Vitriol or not, no reasonable person would argue that the string of confirmed socks, many created in 2009 and all following me either to article or project space, is somehow my fault and that I am responsible for the disruption/trolling of this community banned mischief-maker: Quotient group, Julian Birdbath, Zarboublian, Holding Ray, Taciki Wym, A.B.C.Hawkes, Ansatz, Captain Abu Raed, Fancy Smith, Peter Mackerel, Sophie Germaine, Southend sofa, Spar-stangled, The Wozbongulator, Axolotl mirror, Bogulus, C.D. Tondela, Caderousse, Collared Joists?, Explanatorium, Flexural strength, G.W.Zinbiel, Gangs of Wasseypur, Glenbow Goat, I'm sorry about your trousers, Intromission, Japanese work environment, Keynesian beauty contest, Keystone Crow, Krod Mandoon, Laura Timmins, Leon Gonsalez, Mamsapuram, Mirror symmetry, Old Crobuzon, Peshawar Cantonment, Recapitulation theory, Reginald Fortune, Rita Mordio, Rue Cardinale, Sansodor, South Jutland County, Speed climbing, Static web page, The Phrontistery, The Ringer, Thrapostulator, Tryphaena, Ultra snozbarg, Vurrgh, Water marble nail, William Hickey, Wobbleposture. Has Cla68 really analysed the edits of all these indef blocked sockpuppets or of the even larger number of identified ipsocks? In the same way, The Devil's Advocate (on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2) and Zeromus1 (taking up the DeviantArt campaign of "write Mathsci out of the equation" as Roger Davies put it) have suggested that a large part of my editing is aimed at driving editors with whom I ideologically disagree from wikipedia. They mention the names of Ludwigs2, Captain Occam, Miradre and TrevelyanL85A2. But there is not one jot of evidence to support that claim. Indeed in several lengthy arbcom cases/reviews/amendments, allegations of that kind has been examined and rejected by arbitrators, eg Ferahgo's accusations that she and Occam had been harassed and the two amendments requested by The Devil's Advocate on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2 . It is gaming the system continually to reiterate such serious but baseless charges. It essentially tries to reopen matters that have been examined previously in great detail and resolved satisfactorily by the arbitration committee. So no, I am not "at battle with Echigo mole": I am the unfortunate victim of his army of socks and ipsocks, whose methods of disruption have become increasingly devious. And no, I am not personally responsible for the fact that Ludwigs2, Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin, TrevelyanL85A2, Miradre, Mikemikev and others are no longer editing wikipedia, even if the DeviantArtist group and their enablers keep saying so. Penalizing me for being the victim of Echigo mole or the equally persistent DeviantArt campaign, also orchestrated by banned users, would be a new departure for the arbitration committee. It is not surprising that no administrator active at WP:AE has agreed with the arguments for symmetric sanctions. The situation is not symmetric, since at present I am the sole victim of the two campaigns of disruption due to the DeviantArt group and Echigo mole. The current motion would give the green light from arbcom for both of these activities. If at any time a disruptive user was sanctioned at AE and I had happened to comment, that user could now simply request a new RfAr "Race and intelligence N + 1" centred on my edits and, with the precedent/loophole created here that there is immunity from AE sanctions on arbcom-related pages, request a corresponding sanction on me. From my point of view all of the following requests were similar and increasingly disruptive: RfAr by Echigo mole ; RfAr by TrevelyanL85A2 ; RfAm by The Devil's Advocate ; and RfAr by Cla68 .

So by all means sanction me if I have edited disruptively (providing evidence beyond the unsubstantiated personal attacks presented here). Otherwise, per WP:CRYSTAL, please don't try to sanction me for something I haven't done or even vaguely hinted at. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

ErrantX's comments miss the point. Amongst other things Echigo mole trolls on mathematical articles that I have created and on the talk page of WikiProject Mathematics. The edits are incompetent and either superficial or erroneous, so are simply reverted. In the particular topics where I have been creating articles, there are very few expert editors on wikipedia, including administrators. So please don't blame Echigo mole's wikihounding on me or imagine that there are plety of people who could spot it in mathematical articles. SPI and CU work just fine for blocking the socks. That's what they are intended for. At the moment that is the only way to deal with wikistalkers. Examples of sock accounts that have trolled in mathematics articles include A.K.Nole (talk · contribs), Quotient group (talk · contribs), Julian Birdbath (talk · contribs), Southend sofa (talk · contribs), Ansatz (talk · contribs), South Jutland County (talk · contribs) and Spar-stangled (talk · contribs), as well as IPsocks in known ranges. He's followed me to classical music articles, articles on early saints, articles on French culture, etc. The list of socks above speaks for itself. Penalizing me for being wikihounded is contrary to the spirit of wikipedia as mutliple users have already pointed out. Echigo mole's trolling on arbcom pages is intermittent. It is usually dealt with fairly rapidly, but not always. Mathsci (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098

The TLDR version: Cla68 started to attack Mathsci in an AE thread in which Cla68 showed up after being canvassed from a tor exit node . FPaS tried to hat the conversation , but since Cla68 would not drop the WP:STICK , he was banned by T. Canens from commenting on Mathsci . The last thing we need are enablers for Echigo Mole's trolling; he was simultaneously active at that WP:AE, probably with two accounts and several IPs. There is a SPI ongoing. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: I think Mathsci should take the time to file a WP:LTA report on Echigo Mole, so others can have easier access to the background info. Mathsci's behavior in this case has been a bit sub-optimal, first by making an aside about TDA, Zeromous1 and YvelinFRance in a R&I case involving a different group of editors (which degenerated in a large side-conversation, but was eventually filed as a separate report) and then by filing an AE thread on Cla68 (eventually merged with the ongoing one on TDA and Zeromus1 .) I suspect this was a contributing factor to Cla68's continued presence at AE. But I think Mathsci's behavior is not out of the ordinary and is perfectly understandable under the circumstances, so I don't think it warrants further committee attention. Finally, Mathsci filed a 2nd AE request against Cla68 , this time for Cla68's filing of the present Arbitration request; AE admins can deal with that request on its merits. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Request: Since nobody seems to want to block User:Spar-stangled, we might as well add him as a party per . Tijfo098 (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see he is blocked now. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

This request completely fails to address the real reason for the ibans. The Devil Advocate's was restoring a edit by a Echigo Mole's socks, and telling Zeromus1 that it's ok to do so and that Mathsci doesn't have any right to undo the edit of a banned sock in someone else's page. The Devil's Advocate was explaining to Zeromus1 that an indef blocked editor is not banned, and "The restriction also does not prohibit interactions with such editors, only restoring their edits". Here TDA is missing the goal of the last motion, where the goal is discouraging banned socks from participating in wikipedia. Encouraging Zerosmu1 to interact with indef-blocked editors, for that matter is bad advice and it's just throwing gasoline to the flames. Specially when the edit had already been identified as originating from Echigo Mole, who is a banned sockmaster, not from an indefblocked editor. Zerosmus1 seems to have believed completely this incorrect idea that it's OK to interact with editors that have been indef-blocked from editing wikipedia, and TDA is reinforcing this belief. And Cla68 was basically defending the whole thing and attacking Mathsci. Cla68 seems to have lost the perspective, in his request he claims that this comment by Mathsci is confrontional, when its actually helpful and contains good advice. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

When the problems originate just from one of the parties, the logical sanction is a 1-way interaction ban. You should establish a 2-way iban only when both parties are responsible for causing the problem, which is not the case here. AE es perfectly well-equipped to upgrade to a 2-way iban if necessary. Please don't start applying gratuitous sanctions to people who haven't earned them, just because it's "fair" or "unfair" to someone who has made merits to receive a sanction. Please don't repeat one of those cases where you simply ban a few people in both "sides" without looking at who is really causing the problems, thus rewarding the troublemakers. That motion would just make play right into Echigo Mole's hands. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Penwhale

This was moved from below, by myself, at requests towards me. I think filers were asking "How can editors, who did not edit articles related to the original request, be put on sanctions from that case?", which is odd. Furthermore, one-sided IBAN never seems to work (especially when stalking is not really the case here). As to this case's filing - well, T. Canens specifically said in his post that it can be appealed to AC, so personally I think it's okay...? Either way, one-sided IBAN does not work, in my opinion, and creates cans of worms. - Penwhale | 14:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• @Heim: As far as I could remember, when IBANs are issued by ArbCom, two-way IBANs (instead of one-way) are issued, generally, to prevent gaming. Remember that IBANs include replying to editors which generally implies that editors much work in different areas (as IBAN will prevent them from working on the same article together, generally speaking). One-way IBAN, however, could allow editors to "drive" others out (if you couldn't reply to me, and I add a comment to anything, would prevent you from refuting me - unless, of course, it's discussion about the ban itself, etc). I'm not saying MathSci would do it, but if you stare down the center you'd get why IBAN generally needs to go both ways. Also - IBAN isn't technically a "sanction" in this sense, or at least I don't think it is. I feel it's more "people need to take a step back from the center and carry on with their separate lives" - without destroying each other. It's not a good analogy, but it would have to do, for now. - Penwhale | 05:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by SightWatcher

As Mathsci has mentioned me by name in his statement above, I assume I'm allowed to comment here.

Could the mutual interaction bans please cover me and TrevelyanL85A2 as well? We're also under one-way interaction bans, and are basically in the same boat as Cla68, Zeromus1 and The Devil's Advocate. Even when I've avoided both Mathsci and the R&I topic for many months at a time, he hasn't stopped paying attention to me and seeking sanctions against me. TrevelyanL85A2 gave more detail about our situation in this comment. This situation makes me very uncomfortable at Misplaced Pages, and is part of why I haven't edited much for the past few months. I have no desire to return to the R&I topic area, but making my interaction ban with Mathsci mutual would make it easier for me to return to constructive editing elsewhere.

Comment by SB_Johnny

Mathsci's comment above describing Cla68's request as "a cynical escalation by a user who knows I am in ill health and wants to cause me even more distress for a nonexistent dispute and non-existent incident" is concerning on a number of levels. I suggest enacting the ban 2 way quickly and without drama, and perhaps revisiting when he has recovered from his procedure.

Comment by Heim

I too am rather concerned about the arbs' statements in favour of making this a mutual iban. As FutPerf and TC say, it's undermining the AE admins with no refutation of their actions, suggesting there's no good reason at all. I can say that I too would rethink my willingness to participate at AE if ArbCom's going to micromanage like this. That's a mild loss coming from me, since I rarely have time to, anyway, but you really ought to listen to TC, at least, since he's one of the more active admins there. At the least, if the Arbs are truly convinced one-way ibans don't work, they ought to spell that out in the discretionary sanctions.

I also am rather concerned the committee discussing placing Mathsci under sanctions, as far as I can tell, purely on procedural grounds. Sanctions leave a mark on your record, whether deserved or not, and no one should be tarred with that brush without good behavioural grounds, which I haven't found any arbs have cited at all. It's a particularly poor way to reward someone who's being harassed by a banned user. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with TC. If the committee's going to modify AE sanctions, and indeed place people under sanctions, on a hunch, you may enforce your decisions yourself, as I will be uninterested in doing so. As for all the comments about "if we occasionally modify a sanction, this does not mean we don't value AE admins": It's not the frequency of modification, it's the flippancy. If the committee altered AE rulings several times a month on actual behaviour-based arguments, I'd have no problem with them (indeed, the problem would lie with the AE admins then). When they do so even once based on what their crystal ball told them, I'm afraid that's not something I'm into. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Community input from Nobody Ent

Per AGK's solicitation

• While I am sad to hear that Mathsci is in poor health and wish him a speedy recovery, health issues should not be a reason for steering the course of dispute resolution. References to them come across as condescending (as in the request) or patronizing (elsewhere here). If WP editing has become a significant stressor for Mathsci (or any other editor), I urge them to just stop. It's just a website, the pay sucks, and real life health and happiness are far more important.
• I'm sympathetic to the perspective that restrictions, such as interaction bans, leave a "mark" on an editor's record. However on Misplaced Pages, the quest for "Justice" is too frequently a Siren leading to hazard. There is not, and should not, be justice here. Common sense should indicate the beneficiary of a one-way ban does not edit the bannee's talk page. The committee should either extend the bans to two-way, or make strong suggestions to Mathsci that he be more discreet in the future.
• The anyone can edit ethos of Misplaced Pages which, if I recall correctly, is mandated by the foundation, means that socks and trolls will be with us always. Again, while sympathetic to the stress cause by chronic harassment, Mathsci's behavior is reminiscent of the person whose car is stolen after being left running in the street keys with the door unlocked. Mathsci's actions -- going around reverting edits, frequent posts on Elen's talk page et. al. are providing positive feedback to the harasser(s). As he suspects socks, he should simply file SPIs and let the rest of the community deal with rest of it.Nobody Ent 12:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
• Per the consensus ethos of Misplaced Pages, the actions of every editor are subject to review. No topic ban not imposed directly by the committee should be considered to apply to the ArbCom spaces: complaints of ban violation because a case was filed are frivolous bureaucracy. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration spaces are actively monitored and managed by the clerks, so banning is not necessary to prevent disruption.
• Likewise, review of AE actions by the committee are not, and should not be perceived, micromanagement but rather just part of the consensus process. The majority of AE actions are upheld with little comment; that the committee occasionally takes a look at a particularly contentious issue should not be taken personally. Nobody Ent 12:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker

• If the commitee is interested in "evening" the burden (regardless of merit) it should just consider rescinding one or more of the one way interaction bans, altogether. On another matter, it seems frankly bizarre, patronizing, or insulting to try to make the case that Mathci needs to be saved from himself. The only question should be whether others need to be saved from him? (Or alternatively whether others need leave him alone). But if Mathci is "harassing" you would need a case (and lots more evidence) to establish that. In particular, more than isolated AE spats. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• The motion is a mess. 1) It begins by praising admins for enacting the one way bans. 2) It then asserts that they should have enacted a two way ban. The reason given for doing so is something that has not occurred but may in the future, but only if one in a predetermined manner Assumes Bad Faith. The talk of "fairness" in regard to future assumed bad faith is illogical and worse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• On another matter, one feels constrained to remind the committee that "socking" attacks the very foundation for the running of this Project, which is mutual trust in consensus achieved by independent Users in good standing. Without that trust, there is no way to run this Project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC) The assumption of bad faith in the motion also attacks that trust. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Professor marginalia

Just noting: Zeromus1 couldn't make themselves more conspicuous if they were busting these moves wearing nothing but headphones and a "Sock.I.Am" sandwich sign. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

and this is akin to the Sock.I.Am lighting fuses to the rockets in their sneakers. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Beyond My Ken

• (1) Making the interaction ban two-way is rewarding one side of this issue for their unrelenting efforts to punish Mathsci. I energeticaly urge the committee to reject this motion.
• (2) Urging Mathsci to step back is, again, a seemingly prudent action, but, in fact, he has been instrumental in preventing blatant and rampant socking in this area, and his removal from the scene would allow these activities to go on unabated -- unless the committee is volunteering to take his place, such suggestions are misplaced and only apparently and superficially judicious.
• (3) It would be generally helpful if the analyses of the committee members were somewhat deeper and more penetrating than their comments betray. Blocks are needed here, not easy and anodyne statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by R. Baley

Approval of this motion supports gaming. AE is perfectly capable of instituting a 2 way ban should it prove necessary. Cla68 should be blocked for flouting the ban -not rewarded for it by ignoring the gaming of it here. I urge the current arbs who have given it approval thus far to reconsider and I ask that arbitrators who have not yet done so, to quickly put this misguided motion to bed. If there should prove any need for further action, it should go through the usual route at AE. R. Baley (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by ErrantX

@FuturePerf: If, as I understand it, Mathsci is being harassed by this banned user: then, yes, anything that deters him from reacting to the harasser is a good thing. I am only slightly aware of the background here, but the first obvious solution to any harassment is abstaining from interaction of any sort. Others should take up the task of reverting this individual - because this sort of thing is exactly what the harasser appears to be aiming for.

I am not sure why Matchsci is still interacting in this way, but he desperately needs to stop: it either looks dodgy (i.e. can't drop the stick) or is symptomatic of harassment victims (unable to extract themselves). --Errant 17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

@FuturePerf: I disagree, FWIW. So long as it is explained not as a "sanction" or punishment, but as an "intervention" to try and help him step back. In my experience this is often the only way to end harassment problems. Digging into it a bit more I encourage arbcom to consider this as a motion; it appears that the activity of this banned user is in large part continuing due to Mathsci's difficulty disengaging. --Errant 17:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Aprock

I can only say that I'm impressed that Ehcigo mole has finally succeeded in getting ArbCom to consider shooting the messenger. If this motion passes, it will truly be a victory for tenacious and disruptive sock-puppets. aprock (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

*I think filers were asking "How can editors, who did not edit articles related to the original request, be put on sanctions from that case?", which is odd. Furthermore, one-sided IBAN never seems to work (especially when stalking is not really the case here). As to this case's filing - well, T. Canens specifically said in his post that it can be appealed to AC, so personally I think it's okay...? - Penwhale | 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Moving this upwards; Recuse at suggestions given to me. - Penwhale | 14:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/1/3)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I tend to think that while this issue is not ripe for a full case (in my opinion, Mathsci probably would best be served in letting other people do the banned user hunting). I would suggest that the parties agree to completely disengage from each other and stop filing nine billion ArbRequests in the various flavors. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  As to the charge that filing a case is a violation of the one way interaction ban.. we allow folks to appeal AE sanctions to us when they feel it's justified, as this is the final stop of dispute resolution. Normally, we have a high bar towards accepting these requests (as we would have to be shown that the AE admins were clearly outside of reasonableness when placing or enforcing a sanction). However, one sided interaction bans are so game-able (as this request shows), that it would probably be best to make the interaction bans mutual. SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  I was referring to everywhere in the RfArb family, including this request, Cla.. :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Mathsci, please do not do that. We are aware of the situation, and we can review the interaction bans placed at AE as part of our mandate. Should they cross the line here, we will take care of it. SirFozzie (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Recuse. If accepted as a case, I would be providing evidence. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline as a case. One effect of opening a case here would be to provide entertainment value for the malicious banned user(s) who has, wittingly or otherwise, provoked this entire drama. A second effect might be to cause stress to an editor with a self-identified serious health issue. Whether or not there are issues here that would otherwise be worth arbitrating, they are not of such importance that it is worth doing either of these things. I urge the AE administrators to resolve related threads there in as drama-free a fashion as possible for similar reasons. Most of the editors involved in this situation need to step back and ask themselves whether they may have lost their sense of perspective. If this doesn't happen then at some point we may have to do something, but opening a Race and intelligence 2 case is unlikely to be the best way to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Having caught up on the discussion of the past few days, I stick with my vote to decline the case, and I do not see the need for any kind of motion. (I think that Mathsci would be well-advised to step back a bit from the fray here and leave some of the burden of dealing with the banned user(s) in question to others, but that is personal advice and not something that needs to be addressed by formal means.) I would like to strongly second the sentiment that for the ArbCom to modify a decision at AE is not any form of reflection on the administrators who made the decision at AE—just as when I as an arbitrator make a proposal and it is voted down by my 14 colleagues, I do not take it as a reflection on me. The work of the administrators who assist the Committee and the community by participating in arbitration enforcement, which is one of the more thankless administrator tasks, is appreciated by the Committee, and that is no less so even if we modify a decision made at AE on occasion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Further comment below, in separate section for emphasis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Decline nothing here of such complexity as to warrant a new case. Standard mechanisms are sufficient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• While I do not agree with Cla that a full arbitration case is necessary, I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration). In my mind, the problem has morphed from a prolific content dispute into a more limited "personality" dispute, and in mulling over how to resolve that, I think SirFozzie's suggestion that the interaction bans be applied both ways has merit. I'd be interested in views on the prospect of extending the I-bans from my colleagues and the community. AGK 08:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• Decline and prefer not to amend the current sanctions at this time. In response to the AE administrators' concerns about this review of your work, I fully echo NE's last point (above); we have enormous respect for your judgement, and a solicited review of a single action should not be interpreted to be anything other than part of Misplaced Pages's usual arbitration process. AGK 09:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Interaction bans are generally best applied to both users as it does generally take two to cause a dispute. When people's interactions are distracting users from building the encyclopaedia, and then end up here, it does seem appropriate to consider an interaction ban on all the involved users, so I would agree with my colleagues views above to decline the request, but open a motion making the bans two way. SilkTork 12:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
• I think SilkTork got this exactly right. One way ibans do not work, and that needs to be addressed, but otherwise, decline as a case, and draft a motion to enact this. Courcelles 02:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• I also agree with SilkTork, one-way interaction bans are rarely successful, while two-way bans have a much better success rate. Of course, very often the parties on the receiving end of a two-way interaction ban aren't equally guilty, and there is sometimes a tension between imposing a remedy that is practical and a remedy that is entirely equitable. In this instance, I think we should replace the one-way interaction ban with a two-way ban, which would make the remedy more practical, although I accept this isn't entirely equitable. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
• While I can see that mutual ibans might not be considered fair, they may well reduce the overall drama. I also think that Mathsci and Mole are locked in a pattern that isn't doing Mathsci any good. Mole undoubtedly intends that Mathsci spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder, and Mathsci is giving him that satisfaction by putting massive energies into sock hunting, where ignoring him would probably do more good. As it is, anyone (not just Mole) who wants to get at Mathsci knows exactly how to do it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Motion

As a result of a recent ArbCom Enforcement request, three users, Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) were placed on an interaction ban with Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). These interaction bans were a reasonable use of administrator discretion with regards to discretionary sanctions placed in the Race and Intelligence case. These administrator actions are endorsed. However, in the development of this dispute, the Committee has concerns that a one-way interaction ban presents fairness issues regarding the gaming of this interaction ban. As such, the Committee modifies the interaction ban by adding the following:

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is directed not to interact with Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), or Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. It is safe to say the Committee is mixed on this issue, with several people wanting action, and several people hoping to leave the situation as it is. I was and remain concerned about the levels of vitriol in this area, and think it would be best to just take the logical step and make the interaction bans mutual. SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
3. Support, with awareness that those responsible for enforcement will have to watch closely for gaming from the other three parties as well. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We admit in this motion that we are only amending the interaction bans (so that they become "two-way") because one-way bans are malum in se. I disagree with such thinking, and would expect to see evidence that a one-way ban is causing more problems than would a two-way ban (or indeed no ban at all) before I would support this type of motion. Oppose. AGK 20:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
2. Although I still think that Mathsci would be well-advised to step back a bit from this situation, I don't see this motion as necessary. I would add that while "one-way interaction bans" should be used circumspectly, they have their place and are not a recent innovation as has been suggested (for an example from 2008, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
4. No finding has been made by us to justify this, AE is the place to deal with ongoing issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments on Motion

Additional arbitrator comments (beginning November 2)

Comments here have the same weight as in the preceding section; I've broken this out simply to ensure that they aren't lost in the lengthy section above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Enough. The further bickering as reflected in the parties' comments in the past couple of days has not been helpful to me and I doubt very much whether it has been helpful to my colleagues on the Committee or to anyone else. Everyone is directed to find something else to do, instanter. My personal opinion is that this request should be closed now as declined; despite that, it needs to stay open on this page until my colleagues decide whether they are going to post any motions, but that doesn't mean that there is a need for editors to post duplicative and counterproductive comments and addenda just because they open the page and the request is still here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Separating this comment from my rationale in opposition of the new motion: This motion is a good demonstration of the inherent dangers we face when making decisions by motion. With no "evidence" page and an antecedent page structure designed for basic fact-finding and community comment (not measured proceedings), motions in a case request make us likely to do things with little or no evidence. In this particular instance, a motion has been proposed with little evidence that the one-way bans are not working. Frankly, I'd rather prohibit us from making motions at all. It would be better for us to have a short case, make time to examine the situation in detail, and then write a sound decision, than for us to avoid the extra paperwork of a case and be in danger of doing the wrong thing.

  On an entirely unrelated note, I also think we need to be wary of reversing the decision of the administrators who staff our enforcement noticeboard unless their decisions are rankly unjust or were made without having considered new facts. The interaction bans fall into neither category, so why are we tinkering with them—and on such a flimsy basis? AGK 20:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• One-way interaction bans are something I'm not a fan of; they can be equitable in cases where one party has been disruptive, the other not. But, if you are interested in doing so, they are as game-able as any restriction on this site. There are large parts of my mind that want to support this motion due to that, but the concerns of micromanaging AE; and of sanctioning a user without proof of misconduct are big deals. I could sort of see simply directing AE that they should make the i-bans two ways at the first sign of gaming, but I imagine that has a good chance to be a net increase in strife. Courcelles 08:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)