Revision as of 23:25, 5 May 2012

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Jurisdiction

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 05:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. There's an argument (though an ironic one coming from me) that we could say this with a less legalistic choice of words; but it is certainly true. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Advice by individual arbitrators

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

Support:

1. This probably needs spelling out.  Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
2. I think this probably needs a copy edit, however I support the general idea. Perhaps replace "as the consensus of the committee has any effect" with it "as it is only circumstances where a vote has determined there is sufficient support in accordance with the Arbitration Policy that has any effect." PhilKnight (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   Added a missing "only". How about "as it only decisions of the Committee as a whole that have effect"? That avoids a very long sentence.  Roger Davies 16:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 05:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. There may be rare emergency situations in which an arbitrator or small group of arbitrators needs to take the bull by the horns and act for a short time with a presumption of correctness; but nothing of that nature is involved here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Although "consensus of the committee" is imprecise; we make decisions by majority vote rather than true consensus. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus

3) Misplaced Pages relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Misplaced Pages discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus.

Support:

1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies 19:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Participation

4) The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.

Support:

1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies 19:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sockpuppet investigations

5) The applicable sockpuppetry policy recommends that editors believing that someone is using sock puppets should (i) create a report at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations or (ii), if personally identifying information is involved, or complex investigation involving established users is required, make a report by email to CheckUsers or the Arbitration Committee. In practice, blatant or obvious sockpuppetry is usually handled informally by uninvolved administrators.

Support:

1. Just reiterating the obvious,  Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
3. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 05:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Support as edited. Proposed further copyedit: "unless the situation is so clear than a formal report is not necessary" or similar. We don't need an SSI every time User:Foovandal is blocked and creates User:Foovandal2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Sure, though strangely policy doesn't explicitly say this. I've added a sentence nevertheless describing the usual custom and practice.  Roger Davies 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

7. This is correct as far as what the policy says. Whether it should say that is a question beyond the scope of this case. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not always - concerns have been raised with us via email or privately, which is correct (for instance) if there are RL names involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

   I've tweaked this accordingly.  Roger Davies 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

   I'd support with a tweak changing "if personally identifying information is involved" to "if personally identifying information or complex investigation involving established users is involved" (which aligns with current practice) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

   Done. If anyone objects, please revert and we can put up the tweaked principle as an alternative version.  Roger Davies 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• I think Cas is making a valid point here, and I'd support an alternative that incorporates what he's saying. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I've just copy-edited it.  Roger Davies 17:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Better, but this also doesn't cover sensitive situations where odd results/situations/concerns come up with experienced/long time users. Our checkuser policy advises contacting functionaries list (IIRC.... when I can find the link...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Just stating the obvious here that this doesn't mean flagging down a passing CU about the "This is well-known vandal X, can you lock the IP down for a while and look for sleepers" situations is improper. There are different ways of flagging down CU attention for those kind of urgent situations. (Just to make clear that this doesn't mean "all non-sensitive checks must be ran throuh SPI) Courcelles 06:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• I suppose there are all sorts of exceptions and so forth that could be added but the purpose of this principle is just to make it clear that (a) there's nothing inherently wrong in reporting suspecting socks and (b) inplicitly, the thing not to do is simply run around making allegations without following it up with a report.  Roger Davies 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Posting personal information

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

Support:

1. Again, a reminder,  Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Roger, perhaps you meant "again"? But anyway, support. PhilKnight (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

   I did. Tweaked ;)  Roger Davies 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. I think the statements, as worded, are too strong: once self-disclosed, something cannot be effectively undisclosed, and penalizing people for preventing the impossible-to-prevent seems silly. Still, I cannot disagree that this is how policy is currently worded. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 06:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. This is valid in the general case; there are some narrow exceptions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Per Jclemens. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

What harassment is not

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

Support:

1. From the current policy,  Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Support as a general matter, though this is a general summary of a policy that has proven to have many complexities in application. The specific problem referred to in this principle is one which has been referred to as "wikistalking" and more recently as "wikihounding"; and distinguishing wikihounding harassment from good-faith scrutiny of contributions is not always easy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   I've added, with this edit, "unwarranted" to the "repeated and unwanted" statement above to allude to the bad faith aspects. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies 06:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

   This helps to a point, though it is arguably tautological ("unwarranted" behavior violates the policy while warranted behavior doesn't—one certainly hopes this is the case!). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

   Which I put in the wrong place, so I've moved unwarranted back one. "Warranted repeated and unwanted correspondence" would include notices of copyvios, AFDs, etc. These might be repeated and might be unwelcome, but they are warranted ;)  Roger Davies 14:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

8. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Sockpuppetry

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

Support:

1. Standard,  Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 06:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. To be clear, this summarizes the general policy, without including the exceptions contained in the policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Technically indistinguishable users

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 11:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 06:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Kirill  20:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
8. As edited I can now support this, at least as a general principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Per Brad. The particular clause that is being cited discusses users who are technically indistinguishable (i.e. appear to be the same user as far as IP information is concerned) rather than "closely connected" users in the general sense. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case, checkuser says they are technically indistinguishable (same IP, same computer). I've added "and are technically indistinguishable" to the first sentence to make this clearer.  Roger Davies 05:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• I have been supporting general principles in this proposed decision even though they have exceptions and complexities, but this one is problematic for me, in part because it is not clear what "closely connected users" or "closely connected accounts" is meant to mean. If we are talking about related people editing a controversial article from the same household, that is one thing, but there are a lot of other forms of "connections" that might or might not be considered "close." And saying that we will treat two people as if they are one person is not necessarily an approach that has always proved beneficial in the past. At times it is necessary, if only on the basis that it is more polite to say to a strongly suspected sockpuppeteer or meatpuppeteer that "we will treat you as if you were one user" rather than "it is evident to all that you are one user," but this will be relatively rare. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, and in some instances, it is obvious that two accounts that are technically indistinguishable are different people. In this particular case, which is what this principle is about, it is difficult to imagine more closely connected accounts, or more blurred boundaries, no matter which way it's analysed. Here, the Captain Occam account is interested in the Ferahgo account's main focus: the dinosaur forefathers of birds. The Ferahgo account is keenly interested in "race and intelligence", the Captain Occam account's main focus. Both accounts claim to be artists. Each account is tenacious and persistent in its support in disputes of the other, initially covertly, and then overtly. Both accounts have been active for years in trying to get Mathsci out of the equation. Additionally, the only independent evidence we have shows that they not only share an IP address but also a computer. In these circumstances, we have, I suggest, no alternative other than treating them as one.  Roger Davies 22:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
• I took "closely connected" to mean "share a personal computer or an Internet connection" as per the policy page, and no more nor less than that. The principle is saying that if there is such sharing and they edit with the same objectives, then they may be considered a single account (in case of problems) so should observe relevant policies as if they were a single account (in order to prevent problems). The relevance for this case/review is that despite warnings and notices, the two accounts did not always observe relevant policies as if they were a single account. It is, of course, a separate decision as to how far they sinned, and if so what sort of sanction should be observed, but I think the principle of WP:Share is appropriate here. SilkTork 13:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple editors with a single voice

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

Support:

1. This consolidates the WP:SHARE and WP:DUCK principles.  Roger Davies 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 06:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
8. I could quibble some more with the wording (for example, to clarify that we are dealing with users who consistently share the same IP over an extended time period), but we have an understanding on the essence of what is being said here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• Awaiting responses to my comments on 7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Probably sorted,  Roger Davies 06:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Presumption of coordination

11) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases need to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Support:

1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies 19:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Meatpuppetry

12) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Support:

1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies 19:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Personal attacks

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 06:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. It is as unacceptable to personally attack an editor with a problematic history as an editor with an unblemished one. However, it is more often necessary to invoke dispute resolution or pursue legitimate grievances (e.g. through ANI or AE reports) against an editor with a problematic history than against an editor with an unblemished one. (After all, that editor will presumably have obtained "a series of blocks or sanctions" as the result of earlier, legitimate concerns about his or her behavior, and while our hope is that the block or sanction will have educated the editor about the need to avoid recurrence of the problem, unfortunately this does not always occur, as we all know.) The principle is true as long as "personal attack" is not interpreted overbroadly as including legitimate criticism or calls for dispute resolution. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Battleground conduct

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

Support:

1. Standard,  Roger Davies 09:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 22:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Courcelles 06:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
8. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Consensus in internal processes

15) Processes internal to the functioning of the Misplaced Pages project rely on consensus. Given the more decisive nature of the discussions, and the greater likelihood of harm, it is important that discussion leading to a decision be as representative as possible. In particular, discussion on the deletion boards, arbitration enforcement, and noticeboards are especially vulnerable to biased or partisan participation.

Support:

1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Not completely sure about the use of 'also' in this context, however, overall support. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

   It was originally immediately followed the other consensus principle. Removed it,  Roger Davies 19:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Canvassing

16) While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

Support:

1. Boilerplate (from EEML),  Roger Davies 19:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
4. SilkTork 10:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Specifically, on three named editors who've edited on that topic. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 15:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mathsci

Mathsci: context

2.1) In respect of Mathsci (talk · contribs), after considering the preliminary statements and comments, the Committee by motion invited evidence specific to the following:

• Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
• Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
• Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?

in order to make a determination.

Support:

1. The findings that follow broadly set out to address these specific points.  Roger Davies 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
3. This is just the pretext so yes this was the scope. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 15:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mathsci: background

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. It bears emphasis that much of Mathsci's enforcement activity in this area relates to socks of other banned users, one of whom is particularly virulent and disruptive, having nothing to do with either Captain Occam or Feragho the Assassin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork 14:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Courcelles 15:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

Mathsci: allegations of hounding

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

Support:

1. Per the "What harassment is not" principle,  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

Mathsci: Sockpuppet investigations

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

Support:

1. Hipocrite asserts that Mathsci was "responsible for 88% of the accurate reports".  Roger Davies 14:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
3. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Given the longevity of any editor in a contentious topic area, especially one of the many plagued by repeated socking, it is only natural that an editor who continues to edit in the area would be more likely to see and report sockpuppets. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Per my comment on 2.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. SilkTork 14:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Mathsci: personal attacks / battleground conduct

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

Support:

1. This has continued during this review and is unfortunately reminiscent of the misconduct examined the prior misconduct,  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. From my perspective, the problem is more of a battleground mentality, than of incivility. PhilKnight (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Mathsci is often right. That he tends to be right and that processes work to sanction those who are in more clear breach of our editing expectations should not be taken as carte blanche to continue or escalate the battleground conduct. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Mathsci has tried to follow due process. Yes, the gloves have come off in a long term acerbic dispute, but most of the posts concern conduct. Unfortunately the personal material is now relevant due to the meatpuppetry issue identified. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Clearly Mathsci could stand to moderate his language on occasion, but given his leading role in dealing with disruption in this topic area (much of which is unrelated to the other parties to this case), and that he has had relatively little assistance in doing so, I'm not convinced that this finding is warranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam

Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam: context

3.1) In respect of Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs), after considering the preliminary statements and comments, the Committee by motion invited evidence specific to the following:

• Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
• Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

in order to make its determination.

Support:

1. Per the Mathsci findings, the FoFs which follow seek to address these specific points,  Roger Davies 22:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
3. This is just the pretext so yes this was the scope. "functionally indistinguishable" is not the phrase I'd use, need to think on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Yes, this was the wording in the motion and on the evidence page. SilkTork 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
7. These are merely the questions we are here to answer. Courcelles 05:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Can someone clarify for me the terminology of "be site-banned coterminously" - does this mean "be site-banned under the same terms". SilkTork 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it means that site bans would end at the same time, The topic bans are already coterminous.  Roger Davies 01:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"be site-banned under the same terms, viz - same length of time and same rights of appeal". So, for example, as Captain Occam appealed his block in December, either Captain Occam or Ferahgo would be able to appeal again in June. Is that it? SilkTork 14:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so, but I don't think we're bound by the language as it is, of course, for us to decide in the Remedies exactly what is appropriate.  Roger Davies 11:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: account creation

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

Support:

1. There is a close association from the start; and the long delay before editing is sometimes suggestive of a sleeper account.  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Other than two small edits on 26 November 2006, Captain Occam also waited until 2008 before editing. SilkTork 23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. (Copyedited by adding "The accounts of"). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
7. Basic facts Courcelles 05:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

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

• The finding of fact makes no assumptions about motives.  Roger Davies 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: Shared causes

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

Support:

1. The initial supports at WP:AN were made without disclosing any relationship.  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. While an anonymous account is not obliged to reveal relationships or personal details, this comment: "I saw this issue being brought up on the NPOV noticeboard and thought I'd offer a comment here" appears to be deliberately misleading. SilkTork 20:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

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

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

Captain Occam: topic-ban and aftermath

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Worth pointing out that Ferahgo edited (mainly) paleontology related articles and the talkpages only of Race and Intelligence topics. And that in Ferahgo's words: "my primary sphere of interest is paleontology and evolution, but as you've seen it is possible for that sphere to overlap unpredictably with R&I.". SilkTork 21:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

   Reflecting on Ferahgo's comment above, I think she meant that in the case of Henry Fairfield Osborn she was editing that article because he was a paleontologist, and she got blocked because he had also worked in the field of R&I. I don't think she was commenting on the unpredictably of her edits on the talkpages of R&I articles. SilkTork 21:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo: counselled, topic-banned and blocked

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

Support:

1. The comment in the second diff provides useful context for this.  Roger Davies 04:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Ferahgo has been notified that it would be inappropriate for that account to be used for editing in the R&I area, and yet the editing continued. SilkTork 14:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
4. PhilKnight (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Made minor copyedits; any arbitrator who disagrees may revert (my support will stand). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: site-ban and aftermath

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

Support:

1. Captain Occam's longstanding feud with Mathsci,  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Minor, non-substantive copyedits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• Ferahgo had been active from May 2010 through to July 2011, then stopped during August 2011 returned in September 2011, then made only a few edits in October and November, increasing slightly in December, mainly in palaeontology articles. I'm not sure that the bulk of the finding as worded is helpful. The suggestion is that Captain Occam either directly or through influence is editing on Misplaced Pages through Ferahgo, and while that is possible (and highly likely from the evidence of previous R&I edits which are often on separate days to the palaeontology edits), I don't think the evidence in this finding is strong enough to indicate that. I would say that an edit like this on Dec 27 2011, is by someone genuinely interested in palaeontology, rather than someone mocking an account along waiting to file a complaint against Mathsci. There is a possibility, of course, that Captain Occam was the influence behind the filing of the amendment; but if we want to point to that possibility I think we need to be a little more precise than this finding. SilkTork 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• The Captain Occam account also appears genuinely interested in palaeontology, with a user box on the talk page and a statement (removed on 11 Jan 2011) that they like to "debate about evolution, particularly when it involves my two favorite topics: evolutionary psychology and the origin of birds". The Captain Occam account also apparently assisted the Ferahgo account in finding references for an origin of birds sourcelist.,,,. Much more to the point, the Captain Occam account added a comment about Deinonychosauria, which is the group to which Deinonychus (the subject of the diff you've provided above) belong. All in all, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the Captain Occam account has been the bad hand and the Ferahgo account the good hand.  Roger Davies 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think you have gathered enough evidence to show there is such a close link between the accounts that per WP:Share they should be treated as one (and, indeed, any examination of the contribution history of both will back that up - and then on top of that we have the additional technical evidence). I'm just wondering about the effectiveness of this particular finding as presented. SilkTork 08:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: proxying

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

Support:

1. There are a few number of filings at WP:AN and WP:ANI too, some mentioned in FOF #3.2 above.  Roger Davies

   Remove - with apologies - incorrect links per Ferahgo's request,  Roger Davies 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

2. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. Generally correct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
6. Of the eight links, I found four (3,4,7 & 8) did not support the finding. I would quibble with the "participated in many requests", though agree that they have spoken with one voice regarding matters related to or arising out of the R&I case. SilkTork 14:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• I am perhaps not understanding this finding. The third diff leads to an Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ferahgo against her block, and there appears to be no involvement by Captain Occam. The fourth diff leads to a filing by Mathsci against Captain Occam for breaking his topic ban, and Ferahgo doesn't appear to get involved. Am I supposed to be seeing them supporting each other in these filings, or am I supposed to be looking for something else? SilkTork 00:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: uncertainty over authorship

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 09:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. I see where you're coming from - the wording of (ii) is tricky - maybe instead of "It is more likely than not that..", one could write "There is a strong suspicion that..." Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
5. PhilKnight (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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

• Eh, I don't have a large problem with the second sentence logically following from the first one, especially in context of all the other findings here. Jclemens (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• If it is "impossible" to determine that sock puppetry has taken place, then how can it be "more likely" that it has taken place. There are a range of scenarios that we could look at regarding these two accounts, but they are assumptions because we can't tell what is going on. I think what is important for us is that where it is difficult for us to determine if mutual use of accounts has taken place, and disruption to Misplaced Pages is taking place, then under WP:Share we can treat the two accounts the same and sanction both. I am fairly sure I am supporting the principle that I think is behind the words - I'm just not comfortable with the current wording. Perhaps if the second sentence read: "In the circumstances, where disruption is occurring, WP:Share applies, and both accounts may be sanctioned. SilkTork 00:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't say that it is impossible to determine whether sock puppetry has taken place, the thrust is that it is impossible to distinguish between sock puppetry and collusion. (In fact, since drafting this, it probably is possible to draw inferences from, among other things, edit summaries.)

  With respect to the second sentence, WP:SHARE doesn't only apply when disruption takes, it applies when "participating in the same community discussion, or supporting each other in any sort of dispute" and says that in those situations "closely related accounts should disclose the connection ... If they do not wish to disclose the connection, they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." I cannot therefore support your proposed wording which appears to significantly re-interpret policy.

  In any event, as they certainly did not initially disclose the close connection (the most blatant example being, of course, in the first 20 edits referred to Mathsci's evidence) and have not made a point of doing so, not even with user page notices, they have beyond doubt breached WP:SHARE (which is part of WP:SOCK).  Roger Davies 01:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about "In the circumstances WP:Share applies, and both accounts may be sanctioned for the disruptive behaviour of either one." Or is that not how you would interpret WP:Share? SilkTork 13:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are topic banned

3.9) Following a report to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the Race and Intelligence topic.

Captain Occam and Ferahgo are indefinitely banned from the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages. This includes RFC/Us about other editors where the behavior of that user on R&I is one of the major topics. These two editors should not participate in noticeboard discussions where the main topic is an article that is under R&I or the behavior of an editor who is closely associated with R&I. They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned.

Support:

1. Background. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
2. SilkTork 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Captain Occam is site-banned

3.10) For most of 2011 up to 23 June 2011, Captain Occam worked on bringing William Beebe to GA status; from 23 June 2011 up to 13 Sept 2011, he concentrated his Misplaced Pages activities to user talkpages and Arbitration discussions on matters or persons related to the R&I case. On 13 Sept 2011 Captain Occam was contacted by Aprock regarding reviewing an abortion related article, which he declined to do as he stated that he and Ferahgo the Assassin had already spent six hours studying the abortion talkpage. His next edit was 20 November 2011 in which he raised a query regarding OrangeMarlin on the Abortion ArbCom case. Other than some discussion regarding the Hugo Chávez article, his edits from that point until 12 December 2011 mainly related to OrangeMarlin. He was site-banned on 13 December 2011 for 12 months for "battlefield behaviour directed at Orangemarlin": User_talk:Captain_Occam#Blocked_under_Arbitration_Enforcement. A ban appeal was declined by the Arbitration Committee in December 2011. There have been no further appeals to the ban.

Support:

1. More background. SilkTork 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Probably worth mentioning the block was 12 months. PhilKnight (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

   Added. SilkTork 13:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2

Off-wiki discussions

4.1) In October 2010, Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin initiated discussions with friends about the "Race and Intelligence" topic in a private forum. Among other things, in this discussion, they characterised their "Race and Intelligence" topic bans as censorship of the point-of-view they had been advocating. Within days, two of the forum participants – SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 – were actively editing within the "Race and intelligence" topic.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SightWatcher (background)

4.2) SightWatcher (talk · contribs) was created shortly after the private discussion and, a few days and less than twenty edits later, on 17 October 2010, was editing within the Race and Intelligence topic.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TrevelyanL85A2 (background)

4.3) TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) was created in June 2006, and had made only about 70 edits since the account was created, mostly on military history topics. Prior to the private discussions, the user had never edited within the Race and intelligence topic. This editor started participating in the area of conflict on 18 October 2010.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Editing with common purpose

4.4) SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 edited in covert support of each other on the Race and intelligence article and its talk page., , , , They also behaved similarly on the((tlx|Human Intelligence}} template and its talk page. , , . They also posted alongside the Ferahgo and Occam accounts in a Request for Comment., , , . SightWatcher also supported Ferahgo at Arbitration Enforcement concerning the same editor.,

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Proposed remedies

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

Mathsci: remedies

Mathsci: strongly admonished

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

Support:

1. As the voluntary restriction didn't seem to do the trick/has worn off, we need a formal remedy, I think. There's an alternative immediately below.  Roger Davies 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Contra Cas, there is a wrong way to do a right thing, and I think Mathsci has been at the line or over it on enough occasions that a formal admonishment is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Only if Remedy 5 doesn't pass, because if the interaction ban passes, an admonishment isn't necessary, in the same way if we ban CO, we don't, in addition, vote to admonish him. PhilKnight (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. There is evidence presented that the concerns he's raised have a very real basis, as highlighted above, and most of his posts concern this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Per my comments on the findings. (Plus I have always disliked the phrase "battlefield conduct," though I wouldn't oppose for this reason alone.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• Holding off for now. If we settle on some lesser sanction for FtA, which allows editing of palaeontology articles, an interaction ban would be required. On the basis that one-way interaction bans don't work, the interaction ban would be two-way. In which case, I think an admonishment probably wouldn't be necessary, in the same way if we ban CO, we don't, in addition, vote to admonish him. Otherwise, however, I'll either support this wording, or a less strongly worded alternative. PhilKnight (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• There's the rub. While I think we need to get the point across firmly to Mathsci about avoiding battlefield conduct, I don't think it's in the best interests of the project for him to be prohibited from reporting DeviantArt recruitees at SPI and so on. If, in the reports, there's a connection to Ferahgo or Occam, Mathsci needs to be free, provided he stays within the rules, to mention it. I say this because the alleged steady recruitment of apparent DeviantArt friends to edit the R&I topic is probably closer to the realm of not-yet-entirely-proven than no-it-didn't-happen. Let's not forget that Occam and Ferahgo are DeviantArt alumni.  Roger Davies 21:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci site-banned for three months

1.2) Mathsci is site-banned for three months.

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. Unconvinced this is the best approach. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Roger, for mine, this doesn't follow logically from the sequence of findings outlined above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
3. I'm still completing my review of the evidence, but I know enough already to say that this is not in prospect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC) With my study of the evidence completed, reaffirming my opposition. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
4. While this may be a remedy if battlefield conduct continues, I think it excessive and premature at this point. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned

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

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Prefer Remedies 3 & 4. PhilKnight (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
3. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. In the interests of practicality, a strict topic ban on any R&I-related editing or discussion broadly construed leaves Ferahgo open to contributing constructively elsewhere in subjects such as paleontology. She can't then be a proxy for Captain Occam as she'll be under the same restrictions and open to sanctions anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   Ferahgo and Captain Occam are already under such an enhanced topic ban and have been for well over a year. The same topic ban also prohibited them from initiating requests at WP:AE, so it seems we are getting the same stuff coming to us as Requests for Amendment instead.  Roger Davies 16:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   I don't think I saw mention of discussion in original - the asking of others to correct edits shows this to be problematic and hence needing specifying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

   Given the reduction in disruption over time as the account holder(s) modify their behaviour, I would be more in favour of just a topic and interaction ban. SilkTork 00:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

   Stepping back to re-examine evidence. SilkTork 09:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• In light of the discussion on the talk page, and Cas's comment, this should perhaps be split into a remedy for FtA and a separate remdy for CO. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Phil. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I can live with this as well. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure that indefinite topic-bans of both editors on the race and intelligence topic-area, broadly construed and including process and policy pages, would not be sufficient. I'd appreciate others' thoughts on this before I vote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that it has been conclusively established that there are two separate persons, each of which is responsible for all the edits of one of the Captain Occam or Ferahgo the Assassin accounts. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to add to the uncertainty, I'm not sure that this is about the R&I topic any more. It seems to me that there are much deeper general behavioural issues with Occam/Ferahgo, in particular a tendency to not hear combined with extraordinary persistence and tenacity (trying to get an iBan with Mathsci for nearly two years, for example) which are a poor fit for Misplaced Pages.  Roger Davies 21:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The problematic area appears to be R&I. Though there is also the interaction with Mathsci. Outside of that, I'm not sure we have a significant problem. Our difficulty, of course, is that be this one person playing good hand / bad hand. or two people, one of whom is abusing the other's account, we have an uncertainty that any restraint is going to work given that previous restraints have failed. My inclination at the moment is to consider just the topic and interaction ban for both accounts and see how that goes. My thinking on this is based on the way that violations have reduced over the years as the account holder(s) have learned the error of their ways, and/or that we are serious about sanctions. My thinking is that we are highly unlikely to see any more violations, and if we do, the account holder(s) would be aware that they had used up their last chance. SilkTork 16:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • "As the account holder(s) have learned the error of their ways"? I'm not seeing this myself. The evidence suggests that their frequent filings at WP:AE were only reined in by banning them from initiating cases with the enhanced topic ban. Moreover, the Occam account was blocked during this request for an interaction ban at ANI, seemingly triggered by this remark that Occam made about OrangeMarlin. Occam's first edit after nearly two months' absence was to plunge straight into a dispute.  Roger Davies 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: {placeholder}

2.2)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Captain Occam site-banned

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

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• This remedy splits the accounts for WP:SHARE purposes and thus flies in the face of the evidence. Are we saying here we'll ban the bad hand, but keep the better one?  Roger Davies 13:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Roger. We either ban them both, or we unban Captain Occam. SilkTork 13:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin banned for 1 year

4) Ferahgo the Assassin is site-banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of one year.

Support:

1. PhilKnight (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

• On balance, if we're going to ban, FtA and CO really ought to be kept in strict link step: bans running together; appeals together etc. It reduces the potential for drama; for wiki-lawyering and/or asking the other parent; and reduces the administrative time burden on ArbCom. We always have the option of unlinking the accounts at a later point.  Roger Davies 14:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with Roger. They need to be treated the same. I think we need to look at the totality of the edits as one unit and make an assessment from that. SilkTork 13:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin and Mathsci interaction ban

5) Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs) and Mathsci (talk · contribs) are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Misplaced Pages, and editing any article to the effect of undoing or manifestly altering a contribution by the other party except on Arbitration Enforcement and Arbitration Committee Request/case pages where either (or both) are an involved party, Requests for Comment/User where either or both are a party, or similar pages where their comments are requested. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. The ban is indefinite, but for not less than 6 months - after which either party may request review or both may agree to request the lifting or suspension of the ban.

Support:

1. Following discussion on the talk page, I think it's probably worth offering this as an alternative. Note that Ferahgo the Assassin is indefinitely topic banned from the Race and Intelligence set of articles. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Yes, an interaction ban is worth offering as an alternative but, in my view, it should be unilateral on Ferahgo and wider in its scope. This version, for instance, prevents Mathsci from raising possible off-wiki collusion or possible off-wiki harassment.  Roger Davies 12:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
2. Pretty much per Roger. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments:

• While a two-way interaction ban is my first choice, as I think it's more likely to succeed, if a one-way interaction ban is proposed, I'll still support it. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

SightWatcher: remedies

SightWatcher topic-banned

6.1) SightWatcher is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

SightWatcher site-banned

6.2) SightWatcher is site-banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than six months. After six months have elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

=TrevelyanL85A2: remedies

TrevelyanL85A2 topic-banned

7.1) TrevelyanL85A2 is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Misplaced Pages, including user talk pages, or from participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic. This editor may however within reason participate in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

TrevelyanL85A2 site-banned

7.2) TrevelyanL85A2 is site-banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than six months. After six months have elapsed, a request may be made for the ban to be lifted. Any such request must address all the circumstances which lead to this ban being imposed and demonstrate an understanding of and intention to refrain from similar actions in the future.

Support:

1.  Roger Davies 23:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

Vote

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