Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:13, 12 July 2012 view sourceMathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 edits →Statement by Mathsci: collapse← Previous edit Revision as of 12:16, 12 July 2012 view source Mathsci (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers66,107 editsm →Statement by MathsciNext edit →
Line 61: Line 61:
*'''Response to Penwhale''' No sanctions are being proposed for me. We've had the review and the subsequent amendment. Nothing new has happened since then except for TrevelyanL85A2's subsequent disruptive edits. Penwhale writes below about his former acquaintance from Rochester (as they both indicate on their user pages, although TrevelyanL85A2 is now located elsewhere). TrevelyanL85A2 has an extended topic ban, only recently imposed. He has got himself into trouble twice so far, despite multiple warnings. That is entirely his own responsibility. In this case, after a one month block where TrevelyanL85A2 needlessly interacted with me about the long term wikistalker and serial puppetmaster Echigo mole, TrevelyanL85A2 immediately requested this meritless case. It was based on casting aspersions about MastCell and me which have no foundation at all. It has been a waste of everybody's time, arbitrators in particular. *'''Response to Penwhale''' No sanctions are being proposed for me. We've had the review and the subsequent amendment. Nothing new has happened since then except for TrevelyanL85A2's subsequent disruptive edits. Penwhale writes below about his former acquaintance from Rochester (as they both indicate on their user pages, although TrevelyanL85A2 is now located elsewhere). TrevelyanL85A2 has an extended topic ban, only recently imposed. He has got himself into trouble twice so far, despite multiple warnings. That is entirely his own responsibility. In this case, after a one month block where TrevelyanL85A2 needlessly interacted with me about the long term wikistalker and serial puppetmaster Echigo mole, TrevelyanL85A2 immediately requested this meritless case. It was based on casting aspersions about MastCell and me which have no foundation at all. It has been a waste of everybody's time, arbitrators in particular.


:I think the fact that Penwhale knows TrevelyanL85A2 does not help here. Even without knowing TrevelyanL85A2 in person, his self-identification on his user page does allow any wikipedian to check his history on other websites. That information is as inadmissible in these circumstances as personal statements made by Penwhale or anybody else (e.g. SightWatcher). TrevelyanL84A2 unsuccessfully approached arbcom in private during his block. He has ignored the advice they gave. On the other hand—groans all around—the request for amendment made in January 2012 by Ferahgo on behalf of herself and Occam was for exactly the same kind of interaction ban as mentioned here. That caused endless disruption on wikipedia which continues even now. During the review, all sorts of spurious "evidence" was presented in private by Ferahgo and Occam, some of which I was shown. Almost all of their complaints were dismissed. As a result of the review, however, all those editors so far identified as being involved in the proxy-editing have been sanctioned. That happened only a few weeks ago. Now, through you (I have no idea whether TrevelyanL85A2 has contacted you), exactly the same kind of request as that of Ferahgo and Occam is being made yet again. If Penwhale is challenging the recent arbcom sanctions and AE block, however, it is probably worth bearing in mind that TrevelyanL85A2 did not take part in the review even when notified. (No explanation of that has yet been given.) The AE request that led to the block was not made by me and I did not comment there. During TrevelyanL85A2's block I did remove Echigo mole's fake RfAr notifications after he was indef-blocked by Courcelles, as I did on about 10 other user pages. None of those trolling notifications benefited the encyclopedia since Courcelles nuked the RfAr. :I think the fact that Penwhale knows TrevelyanL85A2 does not help here. Even without knowing TrevelyanL85A2 in person, his self-identification on his user page does allow any wikipedian to check his history on other websites. That information is as inadmissible in these circumstances as personal statements made by Penwhale or anybody else (e.g. SightWatcher). TrevelyanL84A2 unsuccessfully approached arbcom in private during his block. He has ignored the advice they gave. On the other hand—groans all around—the request for amendment made in January 2012 by Ferahgo on behalf of herself and Occam was for exactly the same kind of interaction ban as mentioned here. That caused endless disruption on wikipedia which continues even now. During the review, all sorts of spurious "evidence" was presented in private by Ferahgo and Occam, some of which I was shown. Almost all of their complaints were dismissed. As a result of the review, however, all those editors so far identified as being involved in the proxy-editing have been sanctioned. That happened only a few weeks ago. Now, through Penwhale (I have no idea whether TrevelyanL85A2 contacted him), exactly the same kind of request as that of Ferahgo and Occam is being made yet again. If Penwhale is challenging the recent arbcom sanctions and AE block, however, it is probably worth bearing in mind that TrevelyanL85A2 did not take part in the review even when notified. (No explanation of that has yet been given.) The AE request that led to the block was not made by me and I did not comment there. During TrevelyanL85A2's block I did remove Echigo mole's fake RfAr notifications after he was indef-blocked by Courcelles, as I did on about 10 other user pages. None of those trolling notifications benefited the encyclopedia since Courcelles nuked the RfAr.


:Penwhale did not comment during TrevelyanL85A2's appeal. He is commenting here even after Roger Davies instructed a clerk to archive the page (after Roger's statement, TrevelyanL8A2 made an edit blanking the request; he withdrew it only after it had been turned down). During the review arbitrators pointed out that there was no point in restricting me regarding DeviantArt editors since that would only operate to their benefit and to the detriment of the encyclopedia. In fact, in the amendment requested by me after the review had closed, more evidence of proxy-editing by other users accidentally came to light. If TrevelyanL85A2 did appear to be engaged in building an encyclopedia instead of spending his time militating against me and casting aspersions on me things might be different. The situation is highly assymmetric: TrevelyanL85A2's editing profile is the complete opposite of mine; and he is also not being harassed by a wikistalker. ] (]) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC) :Penwhale did not comment during TrevelyanL85A2's appeal. He is commenting here even after Roger Davies instructed a clerk to archive the page (after Roger's statement, TrevelyanL8A2 made an edit blanking the request; he withdrew it only after it had been turned down). During the review arbitrators pointed out that there was no point in restricting me regarding DeviantArt editors since that would only operate to their benefit and to the detriment of the encyclopedia. In fact, in the amendment requested by me after the review had closed, more evidence of proxy-editing by other users accidentally came to light. If TrevelyanL85A2 did appear to be engaged in building an encyclopedia instead of spending his time militating against me and casting aspersions on me things might be different. The situation is highly ''assymmetric'': TrevelyanL85A2's editing profile is the complete opposite of mine; and he is also not being harassed by a wikistalker. ] (]) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


=== Statement by Fut.Perf. === === Statement by Fut.Perf. ===

Revision as of 12:16, 12 July 2012

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets   8 July 2012 {{{votes}}}
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

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

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Shortcuts

About this page

Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.


File an arbitration request


Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • This page is for statements, not discussion.
  • Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
  • Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
  • Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
  • After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
  • Declined case requests are logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

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

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

Request withdrawn.

Before this is removed, could ArbCom please give some guidance on the proper way to deal with the issues summarised by The Devil's Advocate? I was told at AE that I should raise them with ArbCom by e-mail because my topic ban does not allow me to raise them in public, but when I contacted ArbCom by e-mail I was advised to make a public request. I don't know what to do when I'm given these mixed messages. I know I made the wrong choice, but I want to know what the right choice would have been.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

collapsed since RfAr has been declined
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

TDA seems to be trolling here. I assume all arbitrators will spot that immediately. Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a good faith request but a further attempt to WP:GAME the system, a continuation of the conduct that got TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned and then blocked. This time it is worse because there have been a series of very specific warnings, not all necessarily addressed directly to TrevelyanL85A2, about proceeding in this way. The comments about MastCell above, presumably the result of off-wiki brainstorming with fellow DeviantArtists, amount to unsupported and malicious tittle-tattle.
Here, all of a sudden, TrevelyanL85A2 has found his tongue on arbcom pages; that provides a strange contrast with the stoney silence he maintained during the arbcom review when his conduct was under discussion. As far as disruption is concerned, is this request any better than Echigo mole's recent trolling RfAr? Very hard to say.
I also don't think that TrevelyanL85A2's screed above, even if prepared by his friends, bears close examination. It was after all Nobody Ent that reported TrevelyanL85A2 at WP:AE. He surely cannot have forgotten that. Nobody Ent and I are completely different people: Nobody Ent is not a sockpuppet, or even a meatpuppet, of Mathsci. Nor for that matter is Johnuniq, to whom TrevelyanL85A2 made the following inappropriate response while blocked. Mathsci (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why TrevelyanL85A2 claims this RfAr is not primarily targeting me. In his latest posting he makes specific reference to me. He also mentions SightWatcher. MastCell has now apparently been forgotten; as has TrevelyanL85A2's own extended topic ban. While blocked TrevelyanL85A2 asked for clarification of his topic ban by email. As Courcelles has disclosed on-wiki, he received a response which he now appears to be ignoring completely. Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • TDA writes, "A sock with no apparent connection to any of the people we are discussing posted a comment on Trev's page and Math removed the comment." This was a sock of Echigo mole, whose conduct was extensively discussed during the ARBR&I review (as one of the five questions). He has stalked me for 3 years: he regularly trolls on arbcom pages and on the user talk pages of the DeviantArt editors. Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was one of the socks. He was blocked by Courcelles for trying to start an arbcom case not very different from this one. Since he doesn't seem to be aware of this back history, TDA's comments seem extraordinarily unhelpful here. Mathsci (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • This request does not have the remotest chance of being opened (MastCell? — even Ferahgo must have realized that was a non-starter). Why then is TDA making such strange remarks here? Is he really trying to excuse the conduct of a community banned wikistalker and serial sockpuppeteer, who spends his time lying on wikipedia? Good grief. Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • TDA seems completely unaware of the off-wiki information that was involved in the recent arbcom review. That evidence was provided privately—not quite for the purpose for which it was later used—by Ferahgo herself. Recently it was further disclosed on-wiki that off-wiki discussions with TrevelyanL85A2 and others in the DeviantArt group were occurring while TrevelyanL85A2 was blocked. Other on-wiki conduct issues after the close of the case, e.g. two editors pushing independently for exactly the same kind of meritless arbcom case concerning MastCell, have only confirmed that proxy-editing is occurring. Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Response to Penwhale No sanctions are being proposed for me. We've had the review and the subsequent amendment. Nothing new has happened since then except for TrevelyanL85A2's subsequent disruptive edits. Penwhale writes below about his former acquaintance from Rochester (as they both indicate on their user pages, although TrevelyanL85A2 is now located elsewhere). TrevelyanL85A2 has an extended topic ban, only recently imposed. He has got himself into trouble twice so far, despite multiple warnings. That is entirely his own responsibility. In this case, after a one month block where TrevelyanL85A2 needlessly interacted with me about the long term wikistalker and serial puppetmaster Echigo mole, TrevelyanL85A2 immediately requested this meritless case. It was based on casting aspersions about MastCell and me which have no foundation at all. It has been a waste of everybody's time, arbitrators in particular.
I think the fact that Penwhale knows TrevelyanL85A2 does not help here. Even without knowing TrevelyanL85A2 in person, his self-identification on his user page does allow any wikipedian to check his history on other websites. That information is as inadmissible in these circumstances as personal statements made by Penwhale or anybody else (e.g. SightWatcher). TrevelyanL84A2 unsuccessfully approached arbcom in private during his block. He has ignored the advice they gave. On the other hand—groans all around—the request for amendment made in January 2012 by Ferahgo on behalf of herself and Occam was for exactly the same kind of interaction ban as mentioned here. That caused endless disruption on wikipedia which continues even now. During the review, all sorts of spurious "evidence" was presented in private by Ferahgo and Occam, some of which I was shown. Almost all of their complaints were dismissed. As a result of the review, however, all those editors so far identified as being involved in the proxy-editing have been sanctioned. That happened only a few weeks ago. Now, through Penwhale (I have no idea whether TrevelyanL85A2 contacted him), exactly the same kind of request as that of Ferahgo and Occam is being made yet again. If Penwhale is challenging the recent arbcom sanctions and AE block, however, it is probably worth bearing in mind that TrevelyanL85A2 did not take part in the review even when notified. (No explanation of that has yet been given.) The AE request that led to the block was not made by me and I did not comment there. During TrevelyanL85A2's block I did remove Echigo mole's fake RfAr notifications after he was indef-blocked by Courcelles, as I did on about 10 other user pages. None of those trolling notifications benefited the encyclopedia since Courcelles nuked the RfAr.
Penwhale did not comment during TrevelyanL85A2's appeal. He is commenting here even after Roger Davies instructed a clerk to archive the page (after Roger's statement, TrevelyanL8A2 made an edit blanking the request; he withdrew it only after it had been turned down). During the review arbitrators pointed out that there was no point in restricting me regarding DeviantArt editors since that would only operate to their benefit and to the detriment of the encyclopedia. In fact, in the amendment requested by me after the review had closed, more evidence of proxy-editing by other users accidentally came to light. If TrevelyanL85A2 did appear to be engaged in building an encyclopedia instead of spending his time militating against me and casting aspersions on me things might be different. The situation is highly assymmetric: TrevelyanL85A2's editing profile is the complete opposite of mine; and he is also not being harassed by a wikistalker. Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

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

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

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

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

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

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

Nowhere am I trying to excuse Echigo if that is what you are suggesting Math. I am saying that I see no indication that this situation was orchestrated by anyone off-wiki as Jclemens suggested below. Unless there is some evidence that Echigo is collaborating with any of these users in a rather complex strategy to "get" you it seems more like a banned editor with a grudge against you went around stirring the pot with other editors who had difficulties with you and you stirred the pot even more to create the current situation with Mast providing cover along the way. The point I am trying to make is that I do not think Trev is trying to cause trouble with this request, but that trouble came to him. Trev had been inactive for months and was dragged into this situation by unrelated editors commenting on his talk page and your response to those comments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Math, I am aware of the review and what was noted with regards to off-wiki discussion. What I am saying is I do not see any indication that Echigo was in any way implicated as being party to any proxy-editing (I presume you would have mentioned it were that the case) and as it was actions by that banned editor, which prompted this request, any suggestion that it is about proxy-editing would seem to require real evidence. Your claim that two on-wiki actions indicate proxy-editing is not terribly persuasive given that both actions can be readily explained without any need for speculation about nefarious off-wiki activities. A sock commented at Trev's page, you edit-warred with Trev over that sock's comments and tagged the sock as belonging to Echigo mole. Trev was thus drawn into the dispute this sockmaster was creating and noticed MastCell's involvement in supporting you and openly said he thought the matter of Mast's involvement should be taken to arbitration in his appeal. A day after that suggestion was made one of Echigo's socks responded by filing such a case. It is not hard to figure out what transpired. Echigo has a serious axe to grind against you and seized on the on-wiki suggestion as a great way to annoy you. Unless you can demonstrate that Echigo actually has some connection to past proxy-editing, or that there is some actual evidence of proxy-editing in this case, and that this is not just your typical disruptive sockmaster fixated on you to the point that any little suggestion about wrong-doing related to you becomes a cause for further disruption, then the allegations about some nefarious connection between Echigo and Trev seem to be little more than innuendo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

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

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

Statement by Jclemens

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

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

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

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

Statement by Johnuniq

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

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

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

@TrevelyanL85A2: Your question dated "06:59, 10 July 2012" is an easy one to answer. The recommended course of action would be to not attempt to retain comments by a banned user, regardless of who removes them (you're interested in the welfare of the encyclopedia, and am not just taking an opportunity to poke another editor, right?). Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy where we investigate the precise conditions under which unhelpful comments may be retained. Also, forget about Mathsci and R&I and work on other topics for the foreseeable future. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

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

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

Statement by Penwhale

First of all: Let me start off by saying that I know TrevelyanL85A2 in person.

Now that's out of the way, I disagree with the length of the initial 1 month Block (not the Block itself, mind you...)

As far as I can tell, editors are generally given a huge leeway on their own talk pages. I'm not seeing how the revert warring on Trev's talk page serves a purpose.

@Johnuniq: As far as I could tell, this edit is as neutral as a notification can be - restoring them is acceptable if the editor restoring said comments would take responsibility for the edit, and the edit itself isn't confrontational. This edit I could agree more with its removal (due to the content), but maybe more conversation should be had in regards to the validity? As far as I can tell (without looking at any other page), attempts at conversation was not had (and it is not meant to be had via edit summary, even though people clearly tried to do that).

Note to Arbitrators: I am not sure what to take of this, especially if Trev would be further blocked/banned simply by following suggestions sent to him by Arbitrators.

I have a proporsal, which would probably appease both side of the argument: an interaction ban between Trev and MathSci, across all namespaces except at dispute resolutions where both of them would be concerned at. Reason I suggest this is due to the fact that (1) Trev clearly would prefer MathSci to stay away from him, and (2) current ArbCom remedy in place already serves very close to an interaction ban from Trev towards MathSci, and by placing the interaction ban, situation that resulted in Trev's 1 month block would not have arisen. At the very least, grant Trev amnesty from the current AE request if he was indeed told to file this here by an arbitrator. - Penwhale | 09:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

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