Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review/Proposed decision - 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 | Case | Race and intelligence | Review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) at 17:42, 21 April 2012 (→Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:42, 21 April 2012 by Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) (→Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam site-banned: comment)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Main review page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — Original case page

Review clerk: ] (])  Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 6
2–3 5
4–5 4

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:

Sockpuppet investigations

3) 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)
  • 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

4) 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

5) 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 repeated, unwarranted, 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)
  8. Kirill  05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sockpuppetry

6) 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

7) 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

8) 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:

Personal attacks

9) 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

10) 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:

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)
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)
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)
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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:
  • Yes, this may lack a bit on context. I probably need to touch on Ferahgo's and Captain Occam's broader broadened 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)
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)
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

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)
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)

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:
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)
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ferahgo and Captain Occam: uncertainty over authorship

3.8) Because of technical and broad behavioural similarities, it 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)
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • 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)

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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: strongly admonished

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)
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)

Mathsci site-banned for three months

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

3) 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. 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)
Abstain:
Comments:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

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.