| Revision as of 15:55, 11 February 2011 editLudwigs2 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,240 edits →Statement by (non-involved) Ludwigs2: assistance from a sysop please - or should I take this to ANI?← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012 edit undoRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits dpuble redir | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| <noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> | |||
| = {{-}}{{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment|Requests for amendment|]}} = | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header}} | |||
| == Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence == | |||
| '''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ; Case affected : ] | |||
| ; Clauses to which an amendment is requested | |||
| * Remedy 4, ] | |||
| ; List of users affected by or involved in this amendment | |||
| * {{userlinks|Mathsci}} (initiator) | |||
| * {{userlinks|Captain Occam}} | |||
| * <s>{{tlx|userlinks|Ludwigs2}}</s> | |||
| ; Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request | |||
| * | |||
| ===Amendment 1=== | |||
| * Captain Occam is site-banned from wikipedia for a period to be determined by ArbCom. The topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin could be extended to the two users privately mentioned in evidence to ArbCom. | |||
| ==== Statement by Mathsci ==== | |||
| Members of ArbCom have been aware for some time of ongoing issues of meatpuppetry following the topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and later on Ferhago the Assassin, per ]. Evidence has been provided privately to ArbCom about two users associated off-wiki with both Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin. | |||
| At the end of January, unprompted, Captain Occam's editing on wikipedia entered a new stage of disruption. Members of ArbCom are already aware of the public letter written under his real name to the Economist. He has used this letter on wikipedia as a springboard to reopen the closed case ] and renew allegations on wikipedia that have not been accepted by ArbCom. Captain Occam appears to be fanning the flames in several venues, entirely against the spirit of his topic ban. His edits at the moment suggest that, not only is he still in conflict with users previously involved in ] but no longer active on the articles, but that he is in conflict with ArbCom itself. He has not moved on from the ArbCom case, nor does he seem to take any responsibility for his own actions. | |||
| Previous procedural disruption occurred in December when ArbCom had already voted to lift my topic ban on their own initiative. In these circumstances, and in view of his lack of openness in addressing the outstanding issues of meatpuppetry, even when questioned by arbitrators, some form of site-ban unfortunately now seems necessary. Diffs can be provided on request, but almost all recent non-article space postings are relevant. ] (]) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :To clarify, I am referring to what Captain Occam has written on wikipedia, not what was in the letter to the Economist. The publication of the letter has been used as a pretext for making distressing statements on wikipedia, some concerning me, which appear to contravene Captain Occam's extended topic ban, or at least the spirit of the ban. On ], Captain Occam stated that the submitted letter contained a reference to Varoon Arya and the claimed circumstances under which he stopped editing. Captain Occam explained that that part of the letter was not published. The passage he mentioned is an unambiguous reference to ] of Captain Occam's evidence in ] and concerned only me; those claims were not accepted by arbitrators. Captain Occam's initiation of a discussion on that point out of the blue seems disruptive. He has made further statements which also do not tally with the ArbCom findings . I am upset that he mentioned my name, when there was no reason (see below). The events that led up to the ArbCom case had no particular logic: misjudgements and serious failings occurred which were accurately pinpointed by members of ArbCom; their findings and remedies appeared to resolve matters in a completely satisfactory way, at least as far as I was concerned. I have only praise for the way every arbitrator handled things. | |||
| :Following the close of the case, however, Captain Occam has firstly attempted to get his girlfriend to edit on his behalf and then, when that failed, they jointly brought in at least two other friends, whose real life identities are known to ArbCom and who have been editing R&I-related pages fairly recently. The discussions that Captain Occam has started at the moment seem equally unhelpful. If they were general and intended to improve wikipedia that would be fine; but the starting point was the ARBR&I case and repeatedly users and past events that should absolutely '''not''' be discussed are mentioned. In the statement in the diff above, Captain Occam wrote (I think to Ludwigs2 amongst others), "You probably remember the way this went when we were dealing with Mathsci’s personal attacks last spring. Some of the comments in question were completely obvious and clear-cut violations of ], and ArbCom eventually agreed with us about that, but every time this issue was brought up at AN/I most of the people there ended up supporting Mathsci regardless, and it was impossible to find a sysop who was willing to do anything about how he was acting. How can we be confident that this same situation won’t arise when someone is trying to report a popular sheriff who’s abused his power?" Surely sanctions were intended to prevent exactly statements of that nature being made. My name was brought up when it had no relevance to the discussion. That kind of behaviour is not very different from the accusations that Captain Occam made about Roger Davies just before Christmas, also on ], just after the vote to lift my topic ban. Roger had proposed the motion and I think Captain Occam was suggesting that the proposal was out of order because he suspected I had influenced Roger behind the scenes. I would understand Newyorkbrad's point if Captain Occam had been talking about someone other than me; but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. ] (]) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ; Additional comments: | |||
| * I was unsure how to deal with the incidents described above: because of private information, the issues of meatpuppetry (the details of which have been passed on to ArbCom) could only be dealt with by ArbCom. | |||
| * Captain Occam officially invited Ludwigs2 to comment here having added his name to the list of parties. Why he did he add Ludwigs2? | |||
| * Zarboublian, editing after a month's absence, is very probably an alternative account of Quotient group, himself an alternative account of A.K.Nole, formerly editing as The Wiki House (with Kenilworth Terrace and Groomtech); he is now in a slightly different geographic location in the UK. I discussed this about a month ago with Shell Kinney. ] (]) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Apart from stalking me on several wikipedia pages, Zarboublian made the error of making an edit to back up Kenilworth Terrace on an otherwise completely obscure article. They concerned this sequence of edits. His latest posting seems to be an admission of guilt. His demeanour and editing patterns are indistinguishable from those of A.K.Nole/Quotient group. Here is yet another of his sockpuppet accounts . ] (]) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::* Shell Kinney has confirmed that Zarboublian is an alternative account of A.K.Nole, who was formally banned from interacting with me. Mikemikev, currently site-banned by ArbCom and also indefinitely banned by the community, has just made a contribution as 212.183.140.52 using a vodafone mobile access account. Both their contributions have some similarity with those of Ludwigs2. ] (]) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Yet another IP sock 207.203.80.20 has been trolling this page, undoubtedly Mikemikev. (My talk page is semiprotected for that reason.) As far as Xxanthippe's remarks about "obsessive stalking" are concerned, that is what A.K.Nole (Zarboublian) was banned from doing a year ago. Best not to use these terms in the wrong way, because of some of old grudge. ] (]) 08:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ; More diffs of Captain Occam's comments : | |||
| * on ] ''"What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in . Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely."'' This was written in response to me suggesting to Captain Occam that he should move on and not discuss the case. Instead he make the unequivocal statement that I was treated in an unduly lenient way by ArbCom and administrators. | |||
| * in his first comment about the letter tot he Economist on ], Captain Occam wrote, "The user I was referring to is ], and my letter is summarizing the reason for quitting the project that he gave in ." As explained above, in his evidence to ], Captain Occam blamed me for that. In my perception much of that post was an attempt to re-open matters which should have remained closed following the ArbCom case, and concerning me in particular. | |||
| * here Captain Occam reverted a comment I made on ]. When I restored the comment, Captain Occam wrote, ''"Also, I would appreciate it if someone could do something about personal attacks in this thread. I have a problem with Mathsci’s suggestion that I attempted to commit libel in my letter to the Economist, and that this is the reason why my letter was edited before publication. If anyone actually believes this, I guess I’d be willing to post the un-edited version of my letter on-wiki, so that others can see that this assertion is false."'' He claimed that my post was a personal attack and that something should be done about it. Cool Hand Luke corrected Captain Occam fairly soon. This misrepresentation by Captain Occam of others, of himself, of arbitrators, of administrators, of the outcome of the ArbCom case, has occurred frequently in interactions with arbitrators, in particular Roger Davies and Shell Kinney. Here is ] on ] where Captain Occam repeatedly made unfounded accusations about Roger Davies and a claimed friendship with me: apparently this was based on idle speculation, hearsay and tittle-tattle coming from Ludwigs2. As Roger Davies wrote: ''"Close personal friend", been in touch "regularly", "apparently known Mathsci for a few years". It's all completely untrue.'' The thread also contains references to the two meatpuppet accounts. Shell Kinney interacted with Captain Occam on that topic. Those two users, one of whom is not particularly old, made a series of mistakes which allowed their accounts to be identified. Editing as a ] was precisely what was criticized in the findings of fact on three of those sanctioned under ]. Captain Occam is the user who appears to have problems with openness and the inappropriate use of friends on wikipedia, not Roger Davies and not me. ] (]) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by Captain Occam ==== | |||
| I need to make it clear what’s happened here. ''The Economist'' published a letter from me which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name, and suggesting some possible reforms in Misplaced Pages’s dispute resolution process. Since the reforms I had in mind could only be implemented by the board of trustees, I brought up my letter in Jimbo Wales’ user talk to make sure he was aware of it. My initial post in Jimbo Wales’ user talk ''also'' did not mention the R&I case by name, although it referred to one editor (Varoon Arya) who had been involved in it. Jimbo Wales made it clear that he thought this was an issue worth discussing (, ) and Cool Hand Luke appeared to think so also. ( ). I think it’s fairly clear that none of this, at this stage, was a violation of my topic ban. | |||
| After I had started this thread, several other past participants in the R&I case noticed either my letter or the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, and figured out that the R&I case was what I was referring to. It’s not hard to figure out, since that’s the only arbitration case I’ve been directly involved in. Two of them (Mathsci and Muntuwandi) showed up in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk challenging me about specifics, and a third (Slrubenstein) made a pair of personal attacks against me in someone else’s user talk. (The attacks have now been deleted using RevDel, so I can’t link to the diffs.) Before these editors began challenging me, I’d had no prior contact with any of them in the past month. | |||
| The real mistake I made here was a lack of foresight. Even though my initial statement in Jimbo Wales’ user talk did not violate my topic ban or refer directly to any of these editors, I should have predicted that they would view it as an invitation to engage me in further discussion about the R&I case. That said, I need to emphasize that '''my intention was not to continue this conflict''', and I had no involvement with Mathsci, Muntuwandi or Slrubenstein over this issue until they chose to become involved in it themselves. | |||
| I would still like to be able to work towards improving Misplaced Pages’s dispute resolution system, if there’s a way for me to do that without it being interpreted as continuing the R&I conflict. I am open to advice from arbitrators about whether that’s possible or not, and if ArbCom decides that it isn’t, I’ll stay out of discussions about this from now on. Maunus has offered to become my mentor, which is something else I’m willing to accept if ArbCom decides it’s appropriate. However, I think a site-ban is obviously excessive here. I’m currently in the middle of a major expansion of the ] article, Ferahgo (who would presumably also be covered by a site-ban, due to ]) is midway through writing an article about Gerhard Heilmann’s book '']'', and we are essentially the only editors working on these articles. If we get site-banned, both of these articles would have to remain indefinitely in their current half-finished state. --] (]) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;Response to SirFozzie :I would really appreciate some guidance from ArbCom about what is and isn’t covered by my topic ban in this respect. I was under the impression that I’m allowed to make general comments about how Misplaced Pages’s dispute resolution process could be improved (as I was doing in Jimbo Wales’ user talk), and that I’m allowed to comment in response when someone else has brought me up by name (as in the case of Slrubenstein’s comments). Although the comments from SLR that I was discussing have been deleted using RevDel, arbitrators should still be able to see them, so I’ll link to them anyway: . If I was wrong to assume that I’m allowed to do these things, and ArbCom can give me clear instructions about that, then I can agree to refrain from doing them in the future. But it’s important that this be as specific as possible. Just being told that I need to avoid re-fighting past conflicts isn’t going to be as helpful, because that doesn’t tell me what I should do in situations like this one, where I was discussing something that I considered unrelated until other past participants in the R&I case followed me to the discussion and began discussing me elsewhere. --] (]) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by (non-involved) Ludwigs2 ==== | |||
| I have struck my name above, as I am not involved in or affected by this in any way. | |||
| I think this is a case where ] ought to apply. Even though this arbitration case is long over, Mathsci is still obviously holding a grudge, and still trying to find any excuse (no matter how far fetched) to get the people he was arguing with in trouble. I'd like to ask the committee to impose the following sanction on Mathsci: | |||
| *For a period of one year, Matchsci is prohibited from making any comment whatsoever, anywhere on project, about other editors or their activities. | |||
| Mathsci has an unfortunate tendency to to rely on ad hominem arguments in his complaints; his posts to me invariably contain some snide reference or demeaning comment, and the only reason he doesn't treat me with the overt hostility he shows to others from the R&I case is that I disengage from communication with him as quickly as possible. A year in which even mild rudeness and personal attacks are sanctionable might encourage him to develop more socially responsible forms of raising and addressing project issues. | |||
| I will open a second amendment thread on this request, if that is needed. I am really tired of this kind of crapulence, and would like to see it put to a stop. | |||
| The request against Occam strikes me as silly, sophomoric and tendentious. It does not serve the project's goals, but merely feeds some apparently unquenchable vindictive urge that Mathsci is subject to. --] 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ;comment to Mathsci: M, I don't ''"tittle-tattle"'' (whatever the hell that means). I'll remind you again not to make up stupid crap about me, because I will call you on it every time. Please redact that comment. --] 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| '''Request to sysop:''' I am tired of Mathsci's mindless crapulence. Would a sysop please ask Mathsci to either redact the lie he said about me above or provide a supporting diff to justify its inclusion? If I do not get a response from a sysop here today, I will take the matter up at ANI - I am not in the mood to put up with this bull, and am happy to export this trivial matter to whatever forum I need to export it to get satisfaction. thanks. --] 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Statement by other editor ==== | |||
| {Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.} | |||
| *'''comment''' I don't think that topic bans imposed at wikipedia extend to other public news media - I think that censoring someone because of participating in the public debate about wikipedia would be a bad move, and promote a kind of wikipedia community we don't want. People should be allowed to discuss their wiki experiences, also the bad ones, in other venues without that having any bearings on their editing. However, the appeal to Jimbo was clearly a bad move on the part of Captain Occam and does suggest that he is having more than a little trouble dropping the issue here on wikipedia. I think Mathsci is als inflaming the issue and that a more becoming mode of action for him would have been to simply leave it alone, since Occam's communication with Jimbo is not really harming anyone and is unlikely to have any effect on the particular issues covered by the R&I topic ban. I think an indef ban is excessive if Captain Occam recognizes having been in error and shows a will to proceed to become a valuable editor in other venues as he is currently showing good progress towards (e.g. at ]). ] 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' This accusation must be supported by diffs. Mathsci levels several serious charges - meatpuppetry, disruption, reopening a closed case, renew allegations, several venues, violation of topic ban, irresponsibility. The sanctions called for are equally serious - site banning. It really seems inadequate to airily allude to "almost all recent non-article postings" to support multiple highly serious allegations - serious accusations require serious evidence to be taken seriously. ] (]) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Here Captain Occam says, "I wrote a letter to The Economist which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name." On Jimbo's talk page he wrote, "The Economist edited my letter... also left out where I mentioned who was the user whose reason for leaving I described in detail." ] (]) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Appears to be cup of tea time rather than an ArbCom melee. ] (]) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' so is there anything for arbcomm here or is it just an excuse for Matchsi to rant aganst people he doesnt like? ] (]) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. Advise take no action on proposed amendment. Obsessive Wiki-hounding by ]. ] (]) 10:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC). | |||
| *'''Comment''' Why is Mathsci allowed to engage in systematic persecution of those whose beliefs he deems offensive? --] (]) 23:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Further discussion === | |||
| :''Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.'' | |||
| ==== Statement by yet another editor ==== | |||
| ==== Clerk notes ==== | |||
| :''This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).'' | |||
| ==== Arbitrator views and discussion ==== | |||
| * From my perspective this appears to be more of an ] report than a request for amendment. Captain Occam is already by an arbitration enforcement decision, and are arguably in breach of this restriction. ] (]) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **I agree with Phil here. Comments made off of Misplaced Pages are definitely outside our remit as far as restrictions in almost any case, but there are comments onwiki that may be considered breach of prior restriction. <font color="#cc6600">]</font><sup><small>(<font color="#ff6600">]</font>)</small></sup> 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *It does appear to me that Captain Occam is doing his best to re-fight old battles, and this needs to stop. ] (]) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Captain Occam should stick to mainspace for awhile, and work on articles far removed from those that got him into difficulty. Mathsci should allow others to keep an eye on Captain Occam's activities at this point rather than worrying about them himself. Absent additional problems, I do not favor any action by the committee at this time. ] (]) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * Per all the above, moving away from the area needs to happen and a warning should be sufficient. ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * It would be best for ''everyone'' to move on within their respective restrictions. I do not think a modification is warranted at this time. ] '']'' 14:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
Latest revision as of 23:18, 20 May 2012
Redirect to: