Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles	none	none	23 September 2012
Clarification request: Date delinking	none	none	23 June 2012
Amendment request: Climate Change	Motion	(orig. case)	14 September 2012
Amendment request: Sathya Sai Baba 2	Motion	(orig. case)	24 August 2012
Amendment request: Race and intelligence	Motion	(orig. case)	25 July 2012

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Ankh.Morpork at 21:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by AnkhMorpork

After a spate of edit-warring at Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) in which material was repeatedly added and removed on WP:OR grounds, Timotheus Canens unilaterally imposed these restrictions to address this.

The restrictions - They include: No editor may add or readd any alleged instance of a conspiracy theory, unless such addition or readdition has been proposed on this talk page at least 48 hours in advance, and either no objection was made to adding or readding the content or an uninvolved administrator determines that there is a consensus to add or readd the content."

Problem 1 - The restrictions have been applied to all editors adding any content. This will have the effect of precluding good-faith article expansion. Instead, the restrictions could have been targeted at adding material previously contested which would achieve the same result but would not have such wide-felt repercussions on acceptable contributions, now onerously circumscribed.
Problem 2 - The restrictions have been unequally applied and this will affect the balance of the article. Although stymieing any expansion of the article, no restraints have been placed on editors that wish to remove long-standing material from the article. Any editor can now remove all the material from the article, citing spurious policy grounds (so no vandalism defense), and nobody will be able to reinsert it.
Problem 3 - Imposing article restrictions is the purview of Arbcom. T Canens stated that he was imposing these "under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Standard discretionary sanctions".

These discretionary sanctions explicitly state: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area." T Canens has extended the ambit of user sanctions to include article restrictions. That the sanctions apply to user misconduct is readily apparent when reading Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Sanctions.

He referred to this request for clarification as a precedent. In that instance, no 1rr applied to the Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles and Arbcom clarified that 1rr could be applied. In this case, all I-P related articles were already under 1rr restrictions, and the slanted, stringent restrictions imposed are wholly unprecedented.

Moreover, these restrictions were unilaterally imposed by T Canens without any previous admin discussion or consensus regarding them.

Conclusion - I request that these restrictions are tightened to remedy imbalances and allow for article expansion, and that T Canen's authority to make such restrictions is examined. Ankh.Morpork 21:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK - There is one more thing to consider. T Canens imposed these restrictions in response to this AN3 report detailing a 1rr violation. Can you comment whether you consider these restrictions an equitable remedy.

More importantly, would you consider either extending these restrictions to cover existing content or minimizing them to allow the addition of previously undisputed content?

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Can I suggest that since the Zoological conspiracy theories (Arab-Israeli conflict) article is clearly in violation of at least the spirit of WP:ARBPIA rulings in that it is nothing more than a collection of anecdotes cobbled together to 'make Arabs look stupid', WP:IAR is invoked, the article is summarily deleted and salted, and the warring parties get back to arguing about something a little less infantile than this petty little propaganda piece... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously nominated for deletion, and passed with flying colors, along with many admins agreeing it should be kept. It is false to assume that the point is to "make Arabs look stupid." I don't think either of us are mind-readers, and it wouldn't be right to characterize some of the neutral admins and editors on that AfD as voting for an article to "make Arabs look stupid." The article already survived an AfD - consensus has been established that it should be kept, and the article shouldn't simply be deleted. --Activism1234 21:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fluffernutter

I'm not involved in I/P or AE in general, but I saw this go by earlier today and attempted to clarify this matter a bit to Ankh on T. Canens's talk. My explanation doesn't seem to have done the job. To my linked explanation, I'll just add that the description provided for Arbcom's standard discretionary sanctions appears to be deliberately broad, encompassing things like revert restrictions, topic bans, mandated external review (which is very similar to what T.C. has imposed wrt Ankh's "Problem 1"), as well as "any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project". We're not intended to be bound strictly by exactly what words are used in the DS decription, because the DS description provides the, er, discretionary area of "any other measures." This means that opposing these sanctions on the basis of "restrictions can only be on people, not articles" is missing the point. Admin judgment is deferred to, within reasonable limits, in placing these measures, and there's nothing in what T. Canens has done here that looks particularly unacceptable (though I will admit to having had to read the restrictions twice to parse exactly who was being restricted from what). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Honestly, I think the restriction is a bit too restrictive under the circumstances. The problem was with material being added that did not make any claim of the accusations being conspiracy theories. I think the requirement for discussion of any addition is restricting all editors and all content work for something that is a little more focused. At issue is specifically whether the additions involved conspiracy theories as no reliable sources provided used that description in any sense. Should reliable sources clearly cover a relevant incident as a conspiracy theory then I fail to see why discussion would be necessary on whether to include it in the article. If the material undeniably fits then requiring discussion is little more than bureaucratic regulation for its own sake.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources described it as a myth. Is the exact wording "conspiracy theory" needed in the reference? --Activism1234 23:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "myth" does not inherently imply a conspiracy theory. In the instance you mention, it was basically a fisherman's tale about reckless and negligent Israeli conduct on the seas.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

Well, the labeled "problem 3" is not a problem at all. Admins have always and authority to issue special rules in discretionary sanctions to make articles work, a long-standing precedent has been imposing 1RR under their authority. The restrictions imposed here look reasonable to me, and we aren't going to direct an article deletion. Courcelles 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The restrictions T. Canens applied are complex but sound. In response to the complainant's three arguments: 1) suggested edits simply now require additional scrutiny; they are not discouraged nor prevented. 2) If the new restrictions are inadequate, I suggest you ask an enforcing administrator to extend them. I agree that existing content is not restricted, but I can't say whether that was an obvious omission or by design. 3) Plainly, these restrictions are authorised by standard discretionary sanctions (they regulate user conduct, not article content), and T. Canens acted sensibly and within the limits of the remedy. If there is nothing else to consider, I would dismiss this complaint. AGK [•] 23:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Date delinking

Initiated by Gimmetoo (talk) at 18:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarily re-opened by the Arbitration Committee per this. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Gimmetoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1]

Statement by Gimmetoo

As a result of motions in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking, Ohconfucius editing of date-related material is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee, though it is unclear what provisions could be used for enforcement.

This clarification concerns two issues.

First, I and others have attempted to get User:Ohconfucius to follow WP:DATERET and stop removing YYYY-MM-DD format dates. This has been ongoing for more than a year, involving ANI [2] [3] [4] and User talk:Ohconfucius. For a recent example: [5], where the accessdates were 100% consistent in YYYY-MM-DD format, and the references used a style directly listed by WP:MOSDATE#In references as acceptable. A pattern of similar edits amounts to an attempted Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

Second, User:Ohconfucius also uses a script that sometimes removes a number of accessdates. Ohconfucius was notified of this on 8 June 2012, and made similar edits after (See User talk:Ohconfucius#More editing problems. I noticed that this same behaviour is still ongoing. [6] [7] [8]

Could the commitee clarify the arbcom enforcement of these behaviours?

Statement by Ohconfucius

Let me fix the problems on the articles and at the source, and I will reply later. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the trouble that ISO access dates have been causing, I am prepared to start a new regime of editing in relation to dates – one that is more conservative so as to avoid complaints. I would undertake not to touch them from now on, either manually or by script, until a new consensus is reached on them. As part of the problem was due to uncorrected script bugs, I also pledge to exercise greater diligence to scrutinise test and modify the MOSNUM scripts, and to rectify any reported errors as soon as possible.
I believe it's not worth arguing this one out, and hope that the community resolves the matters in its own time. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 01:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of family matters, I decided to resign on 12 July; shocked and demoralised by the FLG2 case, I had decided that the Ohconfucius account was too tainted if ever I made a comeback. So yes, it was a conscious decision to use another account I had created. I made 67 edits using the account since my reurn, quite a few of which were substantive content edits; I did indeed also make some date-related edits, and I regret the impression created that I was trying to avoid detection. I would reiterate the object for me was to avoid using the Ohconfucius account if at all possible.
The Smalleditor account was and always has been a declared alternative account. And upon returning, I started using it exclusively. But I decided that I would not want the complexities of the scripts' migration affecting many files and many users. For personal reasons, my level of activity is and shall remain very much less than the volume of contribution I made in the past. My current activity, as Ohconfucius, is to improve the functionality of the scripts under my control; the mainspace edits, whilst affecting dates, actually span the entire MOS. Edits have been limited in number – I save but a small fraction of those I actually test on, as a record of the scripts' progress. I took the unblock to mean that my the undertaking in my email to Arbcom has been acceptable. As noted in my email(s) to arbcom, I now no longer change accessdates – the dates script has been modified to that effect. I have not made any substantive edits in mainspace since. I am open to suggestions from Arbcom as to how I might re-establish trust in my good behaviour going forwards. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 08:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

The principle behind DATERET (we have an acronym for that now?) was primarily focussed on dates with written months. The use of "ISO" dates has been discussed extensively, and it appears a number of otherwise sane and well-informed Wikipedians had never run across the format before, and were confused, mystified and dismayed by it. For myself this reduced my support for such dates for access date fields from firm to dubious. Nonetheless proper usability statistics should be gathered before coming to a firm conclusion on this, and in general it should be noted that OhConfucious' efforts in this sphere are reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented. Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Arthur Rubin

Ohconfucius seems to have retired. I suppose this request should be suspended or dropped. I strongly disagree with Rich's statement that OhConfucious's efforts are "reasonably well thought out and carefully implemented", but WP:DEADHORSE seems to apply here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JimWae

I bring to attention again that the script OhC has constructed (& that is used by numerous others) has a function to change any and ALL dates to MDY or DMY, but has no function to change any dates at all (specifically neither accessdates nor archivedates) to YMD. As more people use this tool, inevitably there can only be further violations of WP:DATERET for accessdates and archivedates as people use the tool without first fully examining WP guidelines that allow YMD for those dates. I submit that either 1> changing accessdates & archivedates to YMD be added to the script, OR 2> changes to any accessdates and archivedates be entirely removed from the script, OR 3> the script be retired. --JimWae (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

The way I'm reading the most recent motion, "this subject remains within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee" is simply a reminder that the Committee retains the authority to further amend his restrictions (or current lack thereof) should we feel it is necessary to do so; or in extreme cases open a full case or review. As (by the same motion) Ohconfucius is not currently subject to any Arbitration remedies/restrictions with respect to date delinking, any concerns with regards to that behavior should likely be handled through normal community procedures, and not via Arbitration Enforcement. However, if you feel that matters are becoming problematic enough that the community is unable to adequately enforce matters, an amendment request could be posted to attempt to (further) amend his restrictions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hersfold. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohconfucious has not edited Wikipedia since July 3, and there is a notice on his talkpage that he is on a break. As the concern here is the functionality of his date script, and I see from his talkpage that there have been concerns with his script for some time, perhaps people who use the script could be advised that there is a script by Lightmouse - User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js - which appears to do the same thing, but doesn't appear to have reported problems. When he returns Ohconfucious could decide the value of repairing his script compared with advising users to use the alternative script. If Ohconfucious elects to repair the script, and there are further concerns he would be advised at that point to shut the script down and direct people to the alternative script; deciding to persist with a problematic script when there is a functioning alternative may be seen as unnecessarily disruptive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also tentatively agree with Hersfold, but it would be useful to have a statement from Ohconfucius explaining what he is doing and why. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohconfucious, please provide a substantive response to this request at this time. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's anything that needs arbitrator intervention here. If he's failing to follow WP:DATERET, as was pretty clearly shown in the example above, then an uninvolved administrator should block him for disruptive editing. Clear enough? Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to repeat Newyorkbrad's observation: Despite continuing to edit Wikipedia, Ohconfucius has not responded substantively to the breaches of guidelines and return to previously sanctioned behavior alleged in this complaint. I will place a talk page entry noting the expectation that his next edit to Wikipedia will address this complaint here. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not finding the answer particularly plausible, OhConfucius. You don't explain why you undertook to continue editing date-related material, and frankly, your return to editing under an alternate account, to conduct date-related edits when I'd clearly told you twice that you needed to answer this charge of misconduct before doing so, is more concerning than any script error. Throughout this entire return, you claimed to be retired, only amending that in the last day or two. You spun a compelling tale in email when this issue was first raised, explaining why you would be less active, and you then reiterated your desire to leave the community entirely after the Falun Gong 2 finding against you. Yet, a few weeks later you're back, editing dates surreptitiously. Why should the community believe you when you say you won't cause any more problems, given your rather poor track record of congruence between your recent actions and recent statements? Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Hersfold's reading (and my colleagues' comments) that no sanctions are active. AGK [•] 22:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that no sanctions are active, a return to the same behaviour that led to sanctions in the past is a serious and concerning pattern. I would also like to hear from Ohconfucius on this; however, I would not rule out the reinstatement of sanctions if there has been recidivism. Risker (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to hear a response to the issues here from Ohconfusius. Could one of the clerks please remind him? Roger Davies ^talk 09:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarily re-opened per this statement by the committee. AGK [•] 20:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Climate Change

Initiated by GregJackP Boomer! at 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Climate change arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedy 17

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Not applicable

Information about amendment request

Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#GregJackP topic-banned

Details of desired modification: Topic-ban lifted

Statement by GregJackP

I'd like to request the removal of my topic-ban given to me at WP:ARBCC, and to request the restrictions I was placed under on my unblock be lifted (CC & new age religious movements). In the time since I have been back, I have been a productive editor, taking a WP:SCOTUS article to FA status and generally editing in the SCOTUS/Law/Native American areas. I have worked in Articles for Creation, attempting to help new and IP editors get their ideas to article status and into the mainspace. I also do patrol work as far as Prods, BLPProds, CSD & AfD noms. I have received the WP:FOUR award and an Article Rescue barnstar since returning from my block.

I have no intent to go back into either area, but I sometimes catch myself looking at an article at AfD/AfC that could (widely construed) be in either of the areas of the ban. I would rather not have to worry about inadvertently or mistakenly crossing the line.

I know that in the CC area, that the findings were correct and the topic ban was needed. I have learned from that experience and I no longer take a battlefield approach to the issues. I've found that most issues can be worked out with talk and restraint, or, if need be, by simply walking away. Thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NW. I don't have a problem with the block, per se. It demonstrated the battleground mentality that I had at the time and was appropriate. I believed at the time, and still believe, that you only blocked or took action against one side of the issue, at least during that time period. I also realize that some of that could be lingering bitterness about your role in what happened to me in the incident with you and ScienceApologist. That is one of the reasons that I have tried to avoid you since my return. It is also why I do not intend to return to the Climate Change area. GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK. Thank you, I certainly appreciate it. Would that also include the restriction on New Age Religious Movements? A part of the condition of my unblock was to stay away from it also. I do not intend to edit there, but would like to be free of that restriction for the same reason as CC. GregJackP Boomer! 22:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@NW. Thank you. I do want to reassure you (and anyone else) that I do not intend to do anything in CC. What caused this appeal were two articles I looked at. One was an article that was pretty much crap - unsourced, no hits on anything, etc. that had been CSD'd but declined. I was about to AfD it when I noticed that it tangentially might be connected with global warming. I backed off of it. The other was an AfC I was looking at that was a BLP where the individual was a member of the LDS church. I did nothing there either. I just don't want to get blocked again if for some reason I miss the connection in my normal work. The most likely conflict would be in Native America SCOTUS area, since both the CC/religious areas could touch it there. GregJackP Boomer! 01:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ST. I certainly understand your concern, however be assured that I am not going to go further with this, and made sure that I was well within 3RR. If you'll note, I started an RfC on the talkpage for the issues, and intend to abide by the consensus. I would be pleased if you would watch how this plays out, rather than assuming that I intend to edit-war on this issue. I would prefer to walk away before that occurs. GregJackP Boomer! 14:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, if you would prefer to put this on hold to see how it plays out, I would be happy with that. GregJackP Boomer! 15:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SBHB. I have to disagree with you on the sources. The first source listed, (Bennett, "Defamation of Religions: The End of Pluralism?") was cited to support two statements. First, the arrest and imprisonment of Gillian Gibbons in Sudan, and second, that only the intervention of the British government prevented harsher punishment. The text of the article stated: "only to find herself behind bars for defaming the Prophet Muhammad" (which supports the first statement), and "It was only after the British government intervened that Gibbons was freed and deported from Sudan" (which supports the second statement). These lines are at p.81, para. 1 of the cited source. In addition, the cited article repeatedly discusses the us of the UN Defamation of Religions resolution to support censorship. I don't have the time to address this or to answer the second source immediately (RL commitment), but will be happy to do so later today. GregJackP Boomer! 14:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this since I posted earlier. This is not the time or place to delve into a content issue, unless requested by the committee members. I disagree with your interpretation of the sources, and have shown how one of the sources directly supported the material it was cited to support. If you still disagree, I would invite you to join the RfC, the AfD, or another appropriate forum for discussing the sources. GregJackP Boomer! 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tijfo098. I am open to suggestions on how to handle the matter. After going through the BRD and getting into the discussion phase with the RFC, I was working at compromising on the language. It's not exactly what I would prefer, but it was moving forward. I would also request that you look at the editor that repeatedly removes material while the discussion is going on, and that has thus far not offered any suggestions other than to delete the entire article. If they continue to remove material, it will continue to the point that there is a) no material to discuss, and b) a deleted article. I don't think that is the way to go about this, and I've repeated asked them to stop and discuss it - they won't. I was under the impression that requesting page protection was within policy, and was better than edit warring. GregJackP Boomer! 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

I would be interested to hear GregJackP's opinion on the situation where I article-banned him for disruptive editing (described best here) with the benefit of two years' hindsight. NW (Talk) 05:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I have liked your SCOTUS-related work and hope you continue with it. As it's looking likely that the ban will be lifted (which I do not oppose), my unsolicited advice would be for you to just stick with a few articles or AFDs here and there, not dive back in to the topic area (which seems to be your intent). But take that with as much salt as you wish. Best of luck, NW (Talk) 23:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Ultimately the internal squabbles over conduct that absorb so much time in Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures matter little to our readers. What matters most to them is how accurately we convey information. In this regard the most serious concern over GregJackP's involvement in the ARBCC mess was persistent misrepresentation of source material. Some very recent diffs are concerning on this point.[9][10][11][12] (I have checked the sources and one of them definitely does not support the charge of "censorship" while the other is more borderline.) As far as I can tell there is no problem at all with his work on court-related articles which by all accounts has been quite good. The problems arise when he ventures into topics related to certain political perspectives, such as climate change or Islam. It would be helpful if GregJackP were to make a strong and enforceable commitment to hold himself to high standards with regard to sourcing, even (or especially) on topics where he has strong personal opinions. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

I agree with Short Brigade Harvester Boris. GregJackP's behavior at Talk:Censorship_in_Islamic_societies#Removing_more_irrelevant_material shows some battleground mentality and an attempt to win a dispute by admin/procedural means. Although he did not revert much by himself, he jumped into yet another team effort (at edit warring), which is too often seen on Wikipedia on contentious issues. Almost all the arguments on the talk page are procedural (who reverted first and who has dibs to the "B" in BRD and so forth), so it's little more than edit warring by words. Additionally, GregJackP's inability to understand slightly technical sources coupled with his willingness to express an opinion anyway can be seen in action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worley noise. But we need to retain editors, I hear. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply: protection, yes. Asking an admin to protect your favorite version, no. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are #2 in recent reverts on that article [13] [14][15] (top place goes to Roscelese, no doubt). By the way, it's fun to see another one of those articles. It keeps the place lively and fun. And how much progress has been made. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statements, but my initial reaction is favorable: this appeal contains both a recounting of the editor's successes in other areas and a plausible explanation of why they topic ban is hindering full participation. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements. PhilKnight (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting statements. Likely to lift ban considering conduct since Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting more statements, but inclined to grant the appeal; AE can always put the topic ban back if needed under the discretionary sanctions. Courcelles 02:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I too am minded to grant this appeal. If there are no objections from the community in the next 48 hours or so, I will propose a motion to vacate remedy 17), "GregJackP topic-banned", of the Climate Change decision. AGK [•] 20:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Climate change (GregJackP)

1) The restriction imposed on GregJackP (talk · contribs) in the Climate change case and the supplementary restriction relating to New Religious movements imposed by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee on 17 March 2012 as a condition of unblocking are hereby lifted.

For this motion there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support

This doesn't seem controversial and in any case discretionary sanctions remain in force, Roger Davies ^talk 08:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK [•] 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this based upon GregJackP's statement that he is making this request so he doesn't worry about having to police the outer limits of the areas from which he was topic-banned, as opposed to wading back into the maelstrom(s), coupled with his good work in other areas since the Climate change decision. GregJackP, like all editors, must also continue to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 04:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 21:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly weakly. I don't really see lifting both of these at once, and would prefer we had just lifted one, and come back to the other in a few months. Courcelles 20:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

On noting the comments above and reviewing the case I was inclined toward supporting this motion - though when I went to check recent contributions I noted just today the start of an edit war - [16]. I would rather wait to hear more statements. We have perhaps gone to motion rather quickly here based on few supporting statements (none?). SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is a good idea. And, while the community haven't come forward to support this request, they haven't come forward to oppose either, so that is also good. I'd like to just wait another 24 hours to see if any other comments are made, and in the meantime I'll have a quick glance at contributions history. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holding off for a while before voting. Also somewhat more inclined to lift the CC ban than the NRM one at the moment. Courcelles 16:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Sathya Sai Baba 2

Initiated by Andries Andries. (I had filed this request earlier in July but it was removed with my consent because I could not find time to provide diffs. Reformatted on 24 August with two sentences in italics added.) Andries (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Andries (talk) at 17:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Case affected: Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Andries (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

not necessary

Information about amendment request

Remedy 1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2#Andries_banned
Regain write rights for Sathya Sai Baba movement

Statement user:Andries

I request to re-edit Sathya Sai Baba movement. I lost the rights to edit the article in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2. I lost to a great extent interest in the subject and have little time. But I still have a lot of good sources on the subject on the shelf. I bought them because they were recommended in arbcom case Sathya Sai Baba nr 1. I think it is a waste for Wikipedia and of other people's time and money when they are on my book shelf and only very few people have access to the contents. The article was never controversial, unlike Sathya Sai Baba. But after I stopped editing the Sathya Sai Central Trust, an organization that is part of the movement, has received much criticism. I was the only substantial contributor. I promise that I will revert max. once per week. I will not get involved in lengthy discussions or extensive, repeated dispute resolution, because I do not have time. One of the reasons why I request to re-edit is that nobody seriously tried to improve the article after I was forced to stop editing. I also compiled excerpts from sources and nobody every used them. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba/sources.

To summarize, the reason why I was topic banned for the set of Sathya Sai Baba related article were.

1. perceived inappropriate linking in the article Robert Priddy. The dispute was about linking to one of the home pages of the subject.

2. alleged conflict of interest. I personally think that there was never a conflict of interest in the strict sense of the word, but I admit that I was, as a critical former member of the movement, emotionally involved. This has waned in the course of years. The fraction of my edits related to Sathya Sai Baba has become much smaller as my edit history shows. I did not receive an e-mail or phone call for years via the exbaba website. I was never involved in updating or maintaining this website.

3. very frequent use of the conflict resolution procedures without coming any closer to agreements.

The arbcom considered my edits to the article Sathya Sai Baba as responsible. The arbcom did not scrutinize my edits at Sathya Sai Baba movement, because, as stated, the article was never controversial.

The article Sathya Sai Baba movement suffers from neglect. Look for example, at the following sentence without good reputable source that was inserted there on 11 May 2011] and remains there until now.

"When he died at the age of 84, it was revealed that he meant 96 lunar years, in keeping with the Hindu calendar."

The article Sathya Sai Baba will always remain problematic due to the lack of reputable sources for a good biography. This lack of reputable sources is explicitly described in reputable sources e.g. by anthropologist Lawrence Babb.

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba, maximum one year back from 17 Aug. 2012

List of all diffs to talk page of Sathya Sai Baba movement, maximum one year back from 17 Aug.2012

List of books or article copies that I have on the shelf and intend to use as sources. See here for a discussion of some of these sources Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2

Babb, Lawrence A. "Sathya Sai Baba's Saintly Play", in Hawley, John Stratton, ed. Saints and Virtues Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
Babb, Lawrence, A., Redemptive Encounters, (University of California Press, 1986)
Bowen, David The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press.
Kent, Alexandra Divinity and Diversity: a Hindu revitalization movement in Malaysia, Copenhagen Nias Press, first published in 2005, ISBN 87-91114-40-3
Knott, Kim Dr. South Asian Religions in Britain in the Handbook of Living Religions edited by John R. Hinnels (1997), second edition, ISBN 0-14-051480-5
Kelly, John D. Dr. Bhakti and Postcolonial Politics: Hindu Missions to Fiji in Nation and Migration in The Politics of Space in the South Asian Diaspora
Poggendorf-Kakar, Katharina German language Der Gottmensch aus Puttaparthi. Eine Analyse der Sathya-Sai-Baba-Bewegung und ihrer westlichen Anhänger. de:Verlag Dr. Kovac, Hamburg 1999. ISBN 3-8300-0060-X

Thanks for your time. Andries (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Addition. I have to agree with what Tijfo098 wrote here, I find it very unfortunate that users, like user:Radiantenergy are banned with the stated reasons that they are meatpuppets and sockpuppets. The evidence is at best doubtful and in my opinion very unconvincing and very insufficient. The user has good reason to see this decision as unfair. Banning users for disruption instead of sockpuppetry would be better. Andries (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayen466

Support. I had thought of proposing this myself a while back. Enough time has passed. Andries has access to good sources, and I trust him not to abuse the editing privilege. JN466 07:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing Tjfo098's concerns. Discretionary sanctions in the topic area seem like a good idea to me. --JN466 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tijfo098

Given the inability of Wikipedia to actually contain the edits of self-declared returning editors such as [17], it's probably better to allow everyone to edit it. (Also the number of registered SPAs with obvious prior knowledge of wiki syntax editing there is not surprising; those are easy to find too.) The article should put under discretionary sanctions instead, so that any new flaring of edit warring can be easily dealt with, instead of vainly hoping that every nick banned in the ancient ArbCom case is going to do what Andries did, i.e. asking permission before returning to editing. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Exchanges such as this one and this one indicate to me that discretionary sanctions are quite necessary in this topic area. Also, the remedy against Andries (mainly for COI and linking to Priddy's site as I read it) is rather hollow when two other more prominent critics (and former devotees) of SSB, one of whom was Priddy himself, continued to edit the SSB articles directly; see those two thread links. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me make a couple of things clearer:

Having come back to editing after a fairly long hiatus, I can't shake the impression that a lot of Wikipedia has become abandonware now. Perhaps new editors focus on writing their own new articles, because existing ones remain outdated for years. The SSB-related ones surely look that way, ignoring at least two volumes of academic research published in the last four years: ISBN 978-9004165434 and ISBN 978-0231149334, the latter one having received many positive reviews.
As for the proliferation of discretionary sanction areas, ask yourselves: what is easier for admins (besides not allowing anyone to edit the article)? Having to prove based on behavior alone that some new account is a reincarnation of a banned editor (as in the case of Wikisunn / Radiantenergy) or acting on disruptive editing by itself? (I can give you some easy peasy examples from Radiantenergy's editing if you insist, e.g. the wildly incorrect claims he kept repeating about a BBC documentary.)

Best of luck, Tijfo098 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork. Alternatively, you could semi-protect the main articles and thus force the combatants to use accounts again. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

@Silktork: The list of topics that under discretionary sanctions is getting too large, in my opinion. Instead, I would recommend that if you are not comfortable letting the appellant back unconditionally, perhaps you could lift the topic ban and add a editor probation that expires in 1 year if not invoked? NW (Talk) 19:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to motion one, may I suggest the following rewrite or some variant thereof: "Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Andries (talk · contribs) may be banned from the topic or subportions of it by any uninvolved administrator. This sanction is to expire after three months unless invoked before then, in which case it shall become indefinite." NW (Talk) 06:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other user}

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Decline appeal. In my view, the case for overturning the sanctions is not compelling enough to justify the risk. AGK [•] 11:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will somebody move to vacate R1.1 of Sathya Sai Baba 2? AGK [•] 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be willing to consider this. No blocks since 2006, user talk page looks fine, reduced but continued editing history, no apparent issues with his few comments to the relevant talk pages (a restriction that was lifted back in 2008). This case is 5 years old; I think we can probably find a way to give it a try. Risker (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could go for lifting this topic ban, and giving consideration to either invoking remedy 5 to impose standard discretionary sanctions on the topic (Which would almost surely be the case already if this were a 2009, and not a 2006, case.) or granting AE authority to reimpose the topic ban on this single editor if problems arise. Courcelles 17:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth considering lifting the user topic ban, and putting discretionary sanctions on the topic itself. This would allow work to be done by someone interested in the topic and apparently with access to sources, while protecting the article against potential instability which may arise from his involvement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion, some moderation or removal of the existing topic ban seems to have a tentative consensus here--what is lacking is any agreement on the specific nature of such a modification. Lifting the topic ban is simplest, discretionary sanctions are easy procedurally but NW's point on their expansion is well taken. I will likely support whichever modification a colleague is willing to put forward as a motion. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to support a modification here. Perhaps we should consider suspending the topic-ban for three months, with the option of then lifting it completely if there are no serious problems during that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see by looking at the original item that he was allowed talkpage access in 2008, which appears to have passed smoothly. Very well then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motions: Sathya Sai Baba 2 (Andries)

For these motions there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Motion vacating Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2#Andries banned

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. In its place Andries (talk · contribs) is placed on probation for three months with a view to lifting restrictions entirely past that date.

Support

Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I note that we do not have a standard "probation" provision to describe how this might actually be enforced in practice. Kirill ^[talk] 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I will propose an edited version to make the intent clearer, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Note that Wikipedia:Probation actually is well-defined, but we haven't used it in a remedy for some time and obviously, very few people remember that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I support the idea, but I can't support anything this nebulous, as there is no solid indication what this "probation" is. Courcelles 02:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Courcelles, it's not clear to me precisely what 'probation' means. AGK [•] 21:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@Kirill, I guess just flagged at AE and dealt with there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles, I figure any violation will be flagged and dealt with at AE? I am open for a reword/retweak before other arbs vote. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Courcelles - we should define what we mean by 'probation' in this context. Also, not especially keen on 3 months from now, which places the decision to remove the probation in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to vacate topic ban and impose discretionary sanctions

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 Request for Arbitration is hereby vacated. Standard discretionary sanctions are hereby authorised for the Sathya Sai Baba movement topic area, broadly construed.

Support

More I think about it, this is the only way I can support moving forward here. We have no usable definition for probation, and the topic area is not exactly orderly. (I note that if this were a more recent case, this would almost surely be the status quo already) Courcelles 03:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with this too, but are we simply going to end up putting discretionary sanctions on everything, eventually? Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Kirill ^[talk] 20:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
all editors have to abide by rules. Any editor finding problems with another editors' editing can raise this at one of several venues. I can live with this option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice, support the alternative limited to Andries, and given that we really don't know anything about the current state of the editing environment in this area beyond what we can casually glean from skimming the pages, since the case is several years old at this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

How far are we going to stretch the standard discretionary sanctions system to take this gamble on a topic-banned editor? Either leave the appellant banned, or unban him entirely, but don't pass a motion that insures our decision by extending a system of last resort to an article that has been off our radar for years. AGK [•] 21:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per AGK. PhilKnight (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also per AGK. Risker (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Motion to suspend topic-ban

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

Support

I think this is what the first motion above was driving at, but eliminates any confusion over procedure and terminology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer 4 months as this places the decision in the run up to the holiday season. PhilKnight (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to this. It would mean that the final decision would be made by next year's arbitrators rather than this year's, to the extent there is turnover, but I don't think that's a big deal one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite keen that we don't so regularly authorise discretionary sanctions that it is as though we are throwing bureaucratic confetti, so this is my only choice. (I'm fine with returning to this issue in three, rather than four, months. Our busyness over the holiday season seems greater in imagination than in reality.) AGK [•] 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support as written; while I'm okay with 4 months if there's a copy edit, I think we can handle it in 3 months if Andries shows he is doing fine. Risker (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 12:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to support this alternative, too. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

I'm still considering the requests for discretionary sanctions to be applied to the topic area, while weighing that against the reluctance to expand discretionary sanctions. The article has recent history of instability, and we are adding to the potential of there being increased instability with the removal of restrictions on Andries. There is the same weight of responsibility on admins if we leave matters as they are, or if we grant any of the motions: an infringement on a series of articles can be reported and sanctions applied whatever we decide. Motion Two, however, is the only one that changes the situation from attention on one editor to attention paid where the disruption is most likely to happen: as what we are seeing is that the user has no recent problems outside the topic area, and that the topic area itself is unstable, it appears to me that it may be the topic area that requires attention rather than the user. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by The Devil's Advocate (talk) at 22:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Review remedies 6.1 and 7.1.
Review remedy 1.1.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
SightWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

Amendment 1

Review remedies 6.1 and 7.1 (standard language).
Modification of ban to be a standard topic ban from Race and intelligence-related edits broadly construed and a route for appeal of the sanction clearly outlined.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

My concerns mostly relate to the wording that bans "participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic." As read this ban would seem to prevent any discussion of the conduct of the 1,000+ editors who have contributed to the Race and intelligence article, even when it has nothing to do with the subject. However, from my reviewing of their contributions it seems the only time these editors have commented on the conduct of editors from the topic area has been when that conduct directly concerned the topic area in some way.

This wording greatly enables the kind of disruptive gaming sanctions should be looking to prevent and this appears to have already occurred. Following an amendment to the Review case regarding Mathsci, an IP sock of an editor apparently obsessed with Math left a comment on Trev's talk page. Math removed the comment and Trev restored it, politely asking that Math not edit his userspace. Math reverts, citing WP:BAN, and suggests Trev ask an Arb about it. Trev restores the comment and reiterates his desire that Math not do this. Another editor reverts him, an IP restores the comment, and the previous editor removes the comment again.

Following Math's suggestion Trev commented at the page of Jclemens to object to these actions in his userspace and asking for advice. Mathsci jumps into the discussion, calling Trev Ferahgo, claiming that Trev had made a "sudden miraculous return" and that he was engaging in conduct "indistinguishable" from "Ferahgo's other friend SightWatcher", knowing Trev's actions were actually prompted by the above situation. After expressing his frustration with Math's conduct towards him, Math seizes on Trev's mention of R&I to say "Someone could easily report him now at WP:AE" and a report was filed mere minutes later.

A few days later Math created an ANI discussion to object to other editors restoring comments from that same sockmaster. He references Trev's conduct obliquely by talking of his "perseverance . . . in pursuing those operating proxy-editors." One day later Trev comments merely to say Math had also removed comments from his userspace against his wishes and that he should stop doing that. Math immediately suggests administrative action by stating "he is breaking the terms of that ban by commenting here when his name has not been mentioned", conveniently worded to disregard the allusion to Trev's conduct just a day before. Just as before an AE case is filed in response to Math's comments almost immediately with the filer responding to the ANI comment to note the case has been created, which results in a block.

During Trev's appeal, Math seemingly insinuates that he had nothing to do with that AE case. Not long after that Math once more goes in to remove comments from Trev's talk page, sparking another edit war in Trev's userspace that lead to Trev losing talk page privileges. After the block expired, Trev filed a request for arbitration regarding the circumstances of the block and the removal of comments from banned editors by Math and others, with Math immediately responding with an AE case, claiming falsely that Trev is forbidden from even mentioning Math's name.

This dispute with Math illustrates rather clearly how the sanction has proven ineffective as Math can directly provoke Trev into a block-worthy response without fear of Trev reporting him for it, essentially encouraging such disruption. I believe reducing the sanction to a normal topic ban will prevent this situation from repeating with Trev or Sight.

@Pen I do not think an interaction ban of any kind is necessary at this point, because the issue, from my perspective, is that Math knew his conduct could not be reported by Trev without Trev getting blocked for violating the ban. Allowing Trev the ability to comment on Math's conduct outside R&I means, I believe, that he will feel compelled to avoid interacting with Trev because there will be no incentive. Rather than having a restriction that presumes Trev or Sight will engage in bad behavior outside R&I, despite no evidence being presented to support that presumption, making it so that they have true freedom of movement outside R&I will more clearly signal whether they will or can edit constructively elsewhere on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger It is not the removal of comments from banned editors itself that is the issue, but the edit-warring and resulting discussions about it being used to restrict Trev's activity on Wikipedia. Math could have done any number of things to prevent a situation where Trev gets blocked, but he chose to poke at Trev repeatedly until he said "Stop it!" and then Math basically responds with "BAN HIM!" Look at the discussion on Jclemens' talk page. Math suggested Trev talk to an Arb about the issue, and when Trev did, Math repeatedly accused Trev of talking to Jclemens at the behest of a banned editor, when he would know full well that Trev was talking to Jclemens at Math's own suggestion. After repeatedly referring to Ferahgo and the proxy-editing allegations (including a comment where he implies Trev is Ferahgo), Trev responded by saying Math's conduct keeps him from getting away from R&I drama and Math said "someone" could file an AE case against Trev because R&I was not mentioned in the discussion. He did the same thing at AN as Trev commented after Math clearly referred to the proxy-editing allegations against Trev, but Math said Trev was in violation of the ban because his name was not mentioned in the discussion. That kind of conduct is textbook gaming. The point of my request for these two amendments is partly to make it less likely that such gaming can occur.

I would also reiterate that the wording "worked in the topic" is so broad that any editor who has made a few edits to an R&I article would qualify, meaning the restriction as it stands effectively leaves Trev and Sight on edge about whether they can complain about the conduct of any user as that editor may have a few minor contributions to an R&I article. A restriction that effectively demands Trev and Sight memorize an exhaustive list of contributors to a topic area to know whose conduct they can comment about without fear of sanction is punitive to the extreme.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to reiterate that the banned editor comments are not the issue. Again, even if Math feels his actions were justified, Trev not being able to object to this conduct in his own userspace and Math seeming to exploit that restriction in discussions about the conduct to provoke Trev into a blockable action is the inherent problem being noted here. I believe how to handle the restoration of contributions from banned editors is the kind of issue that should be referred to the community, and not decided by the Arbs in even this limited sense as it would represent a rejection of a long-accepted standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, on several occasions now I have said that my argument is not based on some opinion about the legitimacy of removing comments from banned editors ([18] [19] [20] [21]). Continuing to say my request for amendment serves to "characterize Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming" seems rather inflammatory. Would you please address my concerns by taking my own stated reasons for the request into consideration, rather than making claims about my reasons that have been repeatedly rebuffed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGK, Mathsci is certainly not a minor contributor to the topic area and his actions are what prompted my concerns. Your proposed change would not resolve those concerns by any measure. As long as editors such as Mathsci are able to force interactions with these editors while those with whom they are forcing interactions are unable to complain about those interactions, I do not see any reason to believe the issue with the restriction will be resolved.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will say concerning the comment from Jclemens, part of the reason I believe a simple topic ban is the most appropriate change is because making it a mutual interaction ban would be difficult to enact in a way that would not sanction editors who were not part of the issue. My belief is that interaction bans should only be used in lieu of a topic ban or for when problematic interactions extend beyond a single topic area. Combining a topic ban with an interaction ban, one-way or mutual, when the conduct issues only concern a specific topic area is restricting the editor more than is necessary to resolve the dispute, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a tad concerned at the fact my actual suggestion is not being considered. Under the circumstances of this ban, Mathsci or other editors such as Johnuniq or Hipocrite, are free to confront Trev and Sight at any time and anywhere while, no matter what those editors do, Trev and Sight are not allowed to complain about it. Mathsci could make repeated scathing remarks towards Trev at a user talk page, which he did at Jclemens' talk page as noted in my evidence above, and Trev is not allowed to complain about it because it will be a violation of the ban. Do the Arbs really think this sort of indulgence should remain? These editors may simply remain inactive regardless, but I think there should be some consideration given to what should happen if one of them decides to dust off their account to do some article work outside the R&I topic area. What happens if that editor runs into one of these significant contributors to R&I?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely disappointed that after a lot of inactivity the second motion to show up in this case again does not address any of my concerns. This motion seems to be completely at odds with WP:BAN and would only enable the type of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct Roger himself warned Mathsci about during the review case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to bar them from restoring comments from Echigo mole or Mikemikev, though I express strenuous objection to that motion as punitive given the harmless nature of the comments being restored, then I suggest you at least eliminate the restriction I raised concerns about when I first initiated this request. A topic ban from R&I is enough as neither of them have interacted with R&I editors outside topics that do not broadly fall within the topic area. Saying they cannot raise concerns about the conduct of other R&I editors outside the topic area while those editors are free to interact with them in a manner that, I might reiterate, Roger has actually described as "battleground behavior" is overly punitive.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipocrite

What R&I needs more than anything is another proxy editor for the previous proxy editors. Hipocrite (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

The effect of Amendment 1 would be to enable SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 to discuss the conduct of editors connected with the topic. In practice, that means these two editors would be entitled to initiate discussions about Mathsci on a variety of talk pages and noticeboards. It is hard to see how that would help the encyclopedia, and I am unaware of any reason to believe that such monitoring is required. At any rate, the R&I cases have raised Mathsci's profile to an extent that plenty of established editors are available should Mathsci's conduct need comment.

Mathsci has two problems:

Remedy 1.1. This appears to be satisfactorily resolved, and Mathsci's contributions show a lot of good article development and no battlefield conduct, possibly apart from the following problem.
A long term abuser is known to harass Mathsci. The problems started long ago (disagreements were at Butcher group in June 2009, but started before that) and were not related to R&I in any way.

The banned user now has an easy method of attacking Mathsci. All they have to do is notify an R&I editor about some matter (that event was a case request that was removed 17 minutes later by Courcelles). The banned user has noticed that some editors will restore their comments after they have been removed per WP:DENY (diff, diff), and the community has divided opinions on the desirability of removing comments by banned users. That guarantees a pointless discussion which can be initiated by the banned user whenever they choose.

If Arbcom decides that editors should not remove unhelpful comments that were intended to harass a productive editor, the banned user can create permanent memorials to celebrate their achievement. That issue does not need input from R&I editors (and if it were vital, they could email Arbcom). Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rue Cardinale is a new sock and needs to be blocked. Clearly the banned user is trying to provoke conflict, and the only sensible procedure is to apply DENY by removing their junk. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverseren: Your comment at "03:08, 31 July 2012" asserts your right to restore comments from a banned user, but I do not see any explanation for how that helps the encyclopedia—why would you want to do that?

This clarification request has raised two unrelated issues: (1) what are appropriate responses relating to the R&I issue, and (2) what are appropriate responses relating to the banned user who has harassed Mathsci for over three years (the banned user has no interest in R&I and is merely using these discussions to poke Mathsci). Talk:Silverseren now has a completely superfluous "notification" signed by a sock with a username that matches the street where Mathsci lives—it is rare to see such a clear case of harassment.

I saw an early disagreement between the banned user and Mathsci (from a discussion at ANI in 2009), and the initial interaction showed a good editor (Mathsci) going out of their way to provide helpful answers to questions from the user (see here). That is after an ANI report by Mathsci against the user (ANI archive), which indicates that one source of friction involved a mistaken belief by the user regarding Mathsci's username. The best (and only) way of handling the banned user is by a strict application of WP:DENY (I hate having to provide all this material which will only excite more trouble).

We should assist good editors (see Mathsci's contributions), and should do all that is possible to prevent disruption by banned users. Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

I am sort of torn about this one. But I believe that MathSci and Trev needs to stay away from each other, as much as possible. Thus, if remedy is changed to topic ban, some sort of user-talk interaction ban (at the very least) needs to be present. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

R&I would be much calmer if Mathsci stuck to content (on WP) and completely recused themselves from role of policeman/enforcer (anywhere on WP, not just R&I). It's time for his holier than thou to stop. Do we really all have time to keep reading through his enforcement-related litanies?VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (yet another user)

Amendment 2

Review remedy 1.1.
Include an explicit warning that further battleground conduct by Mathsci towards editors that is related to the topic will be cause for discretionary sanctions.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

It seems that Mathsci does not understand that the standard regime of discretionary sanctions under Remedy 5.2, which replaced Remedy 5.1, would also apply to his activities. He has claimed that WP:AE can only be used to report edits related to R&I on articles and their talk pages, or edits that violate a sanction and that he can thus only be sanctioned through a request for amendment. The following are some instances where he has made this mistaken claim:

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

Making it clear to Math that his conduct related to R&I anywhere on Wikipedia could be cited at AE as the basis for sanctions would seemingly help, together with the above amendment, in preventing Math from continuing in this disruptive conduct and allow these editors some breathing room to try and be productive elsewhere.

@Math The request I am making is so fundamentally different from the requests for arbitration that your claim it is "not very different" is just bizarre. As to the predictable accusation of proxy-editing, if you also wish to be "in contact off-wiki" with me that would be fine. Got mountains of evidence you wish to share privately? Feel free. Door's open dude. Oh, and sorry for leaving a notification on your talk page. I was on auto-pilot and forgot about your prior request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to keep this statement short and respect the privacy of the communication so I will give you the cliff's notes version of that rather anticlimactic e-mail. He feels the arbitration request was respecting what was said by the Arbs, he preferred on-wiki suggestions other than the one I previously made on-wiki and am making here, and said some inconsequential stuff about you that I have not alluded to here at all. All in all, I do what I want.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John, I understand the desire to deny recognition, but there are more ways to deny recognition than RBI. Sometimes a much more concise and successful approach is if you remove the R. Certain things just aren't worth clicking undo.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad, I am not suggesting some sort of new remedy for Math. Effectively my suggestion with this second amendment is redundant as Remedy 5.2 already says any editor making any edits related to R&I anywhere on Wikipedia can be sanctioned if those edits violate policy. Basically my suggestion is to drive the point home by adding something like "and warned that continued battleground behavior anywhere on Wikipedia relating to R&I broadly construed could lead to sanctions under Remedy 5.2", or something to that effect, to his admonishment. That way he is not under the impression that his actions in userspace, or any other non-article space, are exempt from discretionary sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@CIreland I don't think that's a very good idea. Just like the current restriction against Trev and Sight it would be so broad as to be just another cause for useless drama. How does someone know the edit belongs to a specific sockmaster? If someone is unaware of the restriction how do we react? There is no conceivable way such a new restriction would do anything but create more problems.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive attempts to divert this into a discussion about a banned editor should not be indulged by the Arbs. I have only mentioned the issue here to help illustrate the inherent problem with the restriction against Trev and Sight. That they are not allowed to object to an individual directly engaging them in a combative manner is the problem here, regardless of whether one feels the combativeness is justified or not. Math's mistaken belief that he cannot be subject to discretionary sanctions as long as he avoids editing articles and talk pages relating to the topic area is another matter that needs to be addressed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger I am attempting to minimize disruption to this request. Getting more editors to comment here is not helping in that respect, considering the issue you are raising is not really relevant to the request I am making (Math and Trev could have been fighting over the color of Master Chief's armor for all that I care). Can you honestly say right now that Trev being unable to comment on Math's conduct, when Math can directly engage Trev in a combative manner without worrying about his conduct being reported by Trev, is really serving to prevent disruption? Regardless of what prompted the situation, the situation itself did not play out in a way that suggests the restriction is helping to minimize disruption. I believe the best way to prevent disruption to the project would be to consider my two amendment requests, and not support any unprecedented restriction that disregards a long-standing community consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Math You can't just say "this person is definitely a sock" on their user page, or on your user page, without ever having an SPI filed that confirms your allegations. I know from reviewing the history that you do not have a perfect record when it comes to accusing people of being socks, so I don't think anyone should just take your word for it. However, this is not the place for that discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to add that I would have asked on Math's talk page for him to remove these allegations or file an SPI to substantiate them, but I am respecting his desire that I not comment on his talk page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math, if you wish to discuss this matter with me, you can comment on my talk page. I am not going to debate the quality of a classical music article in a request for amending a case that pertains to Race and Intelligence. I will say that you should be mindful of a saying about glass houses.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John, Trev clearly answered Roger's question at the very beginning of his initial statement.
@Math, the comment restored by the Echigo sock was a previous suggestion for a legitimate clean start and made no direct reference to you. Afterwards, Sinebot mistakenly added the new sock's signature and Trev removed that signature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@John, did you read the rest of the discussion at Jclemens' talk page? Mathsci's comments there were not exactly about Echigo mole. As to your quote from Roger Davies, I should note that during the review case he touched on the issue of Mathsci removing comments by the very same banned editor from the talk pages of other editors and said:

While reverting posts by a banned user is an option, Mathsci shouldn't be doing so from user talk pages in the face of the user's opposition to him doing so. Accordingly, I don't think the latest revert yesterday was either wise or appropriate, especially as the post was neither extreme nor offensive nor a personal attack on Mathsci. This is provocative battleground behaviour.

Honestly, I have been a tad perplexed by Roger's comments below since they seem to be inconsistent with his comments on the review case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

collapsed because comments outdated now

I have already made several statements in private to the arbitration committee prior to this request being posted concerning the interactions between TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate. Apart from omitting all mention of MastCell, this request does not seem very different from TrevelyanL85A2's very recently rejected RfAr and also not very different from the RfAr of Keystone Crow that was removed almost immediately by Courcelles. The only thing that might be worth pointing out here is that The Devil's Advocate has been in contact off-wiki with TrevelyanL85A2. The Devil's Advocate is also himself under a 6 month topic ban under WP:ARB911. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My content edits are disjoint from the topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I and have been for two years. Nothing new has happened since the recent review apart from the reappearance on wikipedia of two of the parties that chose not to comment during the review. Arbitrators, in particular Casliber and Elen of the Roads, suggested that arbcom should be kept informed of any problems from the DeviantArt group of editors. The on-wiki and then off-wiki communications between The Devil's Advocate and TrevelyanL95A2 were of that kind.[26][27] At the moment The Devil's Advocate seems to be acting on behalf of TrevelyanL85A2, after communicating at least once in private. The banned wikihounder Echigo mole/A.K.Nole is a red herring, a red herring that appears to be on holiday at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echigo mole/A.K.Nole was discussed at length during the review along with Mikemikev in response to one of the five questions of Roger Davies. There is no reason why the review should be revisited just because The Devil's Advoacate missed it first time round. He does not seem fully aware of the background and has preferred to take private advice on the review from TrevelyanL85A2 who, although undoubtedly aware of what was happening in the review, chose not to participate even after being added as a party. Like the DeviantArt group, including the two site-banned users Occam and Ferahgo, The Devil's Advocate has chosen to concentrate matters on the banned user Echigo mole/A.K.Nole, a long term wikihounder, with a whole sleeping sock farm created in 2009. Echigo mole is engaged in acts of deception, harassment and disruption. The responses above of the Devil's Advocate do not seem helpful. The Devil's Advocate made a conscious decision to engage in private discussions with a topic banned user on matters he knew could not be discussed on wikipedia. That private exchange unfortunately now connects The Devil's Advocate with other members of the DeviantArt group, including the site-banned editors Occam and Ferahgo. On the talk page of an arbitrator,[28][29] The Devil's Advocate has also pressed to see private evidence provided during the review (i.e. by Occam and Ferahgo). To my knowledge nobody except arbitrators has been shown that evidence. Apart from one exception fairly late on, I was not shown any submissions provided by Occam or Ferahgo. On-wikipedia and off-wikipedia (on Wikipediocracy) The Devil's Advocate has made a series of statements about parties involved in the review which show either confusion or a mireading of the review and the preceding request for amendment. That might be an accident on his part. For example during the review historic versions of the Fur Affinity attack pages were displayed (here, here. here) but The Devil's Advocate, from his statements on Wikipediocracy, only had access to later versions, after offensive comments had been removed. I am not aware of other circumstances where a single user has made a request for a review to be rerun after he missed it first time round. That would appear to be a waste of everybody's time. The Devil's Advocate has gone further by involving himself in private communications with part of the DeviantArt group and making a series of unjustifiable assertions. Perhaps that was not his intention, but his submission favours banned disruptive trolls, known to arbitators, other checkusers and administrators, over established editors engaged in improving this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Echigo mole has unfortunately become active again as Rue Cardinale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Editors should be aware that the username Rue Cardinale was chosen because it is the road in which I live in Aix-en-Provence; in the past sockpuppets of Echigo mole, now blocked, have attempted to write hoax or undue content about that street on wikipedia. The edits of this particular sock troll, blocked indefinitely by FPaS, were removed from User talk:TrevelyanL85A2 by Hipocrite and then restored by TrevelyanL85A2 with a bizarre edit summary.[30] MastCell's analysis of TrevelyanL85A2's edits (vis-a-vis Echigo mole) hits the nail on the head. Why are people wasting time with this nonsense? Penwhale, you could easily have double checked with FPaS. Mathsci (talk) 21:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that TrevelyanL85A2 had already been informed about this RfAm by The Devil's Advocate (see above). Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Examined individually, some might argue that all the edits of Rue Cardinale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) were fine. Presumably they could say the same about the edits of Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On the other hand those accounts were blocked indefinitely fairly quickly by administrators, per WP:CLUE and WP:DUCK. Going back on-topic, the only issue that has arisen here with any relevance to the arbcom review is the deliberate bypassing of a topic ban or a ban through a proxy-editor, through email or other off-wiki communication. Mathsci (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AQFK has claimed elsewhere that I had edit-warred on User talk:TrevelyanL85A2.[31] The editing history of that page shows that not to be the case.[32] Note that AQFK comes to this page in response to the trolling edits of Echigo mole as Rue Cardinale. Good grief. Mathsci (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate left problematic comments on Newyorkbrad's talk page.[33] I reported those at WP:WQA where another report about TDA had recently been filed. Only in death heavily edited my comment there, without any justification. Prior to posting here Only in death posted twice on my talk page, once after being explicitly requested not to, because I was (and still am) busy adding quite tricky mathematical content spread over several articles. The edits of Only in death were unhelpful and discourteous on WP:WQA; he is now treating this arbcom page as if it were WP:ANI. Ah yes, ... that famous peanut gallery. Mathsci (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death, please do not remove editors' comments on wikipedia pages, whether you agree with them or not. Doing so is just disruptive and can result in blocks. You can remove them on your talk page, but not elsewhere, except in exceptional circumstance. Per WP:DENY, that includes malicious trolling by idenitified community banned editors. I removed all the fake RfAR notifications in June by Keystone Crow that had not already been removed by the recipients (e.g. MastCell). Mathsci (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger: I have never banned people from editing my user talk page. When there is a more appropriate place for them to edit or if their edits are unhelpful, I politely request that they do not comment there. I think that happened with Andriabenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who turned out be a sockpuppet of a banned user. My talk page has been semiprotected at various stages because of abusive edits by either Mikemikev or Echigo mole. Although my memory is fuzzy about wikipedia in March, I think the protection then happened because of the horrific youtube links added by Mikemikev after the death of Steven Rubenstein. Since you ask. Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QFAK: there was no edit war, but you have continued to make exaggerated claims. There were two edits on May 27 to remove a trolling comment by an ipsock of Echigo mole from his standard IP range (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole); and one edit on June 10 to remove the notification by Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of an abusive RfAR that was deleted instaneously by Courcelles who simultaneously blocked the Echigo mole sock. Similar messages were removed by me from about 10 other user pages. Here once more is the edit history for [[user talk:once again: [34] Johnuniq removed the fake RfAr notification two further times in June after TrevelyanL85A2 restored it twice (with no clear benefit to either himself or wikipedia, as Johnuniq has said). Mathsci (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither AQFK not TDA has heeded the warning from Newyorkbrad. Both have repeated false claims of edit warring (see above). Both these editors have been subject to several arbcom restrictions before (in AQFK's case 6 months for 911 and and two years for CC). Neither of them know me from Adam, yet base their exaggerated rants on 2 edits by me in late May and early June. The recent edits of Rue Cardinale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), were reverted by others. But no, they are only interested in those two minor edits, both justified by WP:DENY. If that isn't trolling on arbcom pages, what is? Mathsci (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2's response is almost indistinguishable from the statements of Ferahgo-the-Assassin that led to her site ban. It can be safely be presumed that it was prepared in collaboration with her and Captain Occam. The most shocking part of TrevelyanL85A2's statement is his blithe endorsement of Echigo mole's editing as Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Echigo mole is a community banned editor and TrevelyanL85A2 is not at liberty to give him the thumbs up. (Just before his site-ban, Occam behaved similarly acting as a proxy for Grundle2600.) The second problem is with TrevelyanL85A2's mentioning of a "dispute". There is no dispute. There is, however, an explicit topic ban which prohibits TrevelyanL85A2 from agitating against me in an Occamesque way on wikipedia. He is doing so now. Presumably he expressed himself in the same way in his private discussions with TDA which preceded this meritless request. Neither of them should have engaged in that activity.[35] TrevelyanL85A2 seems to think he can interpret the rules of wikipedia as it suits him: it's all a big WP:GAME. But that is not how wikipedia works. It is primarily about creating scholarly articles to build a high quality encyclopedia; it is not a role-playing war game. Possibly on the advice of others, TrevelyanL85A2 chose not to comment in the review, when he was free to make any statements he wished (within reasonable bounds). That is not the case now. Using Roger Davies' question as a loophole to launch a full-blown Ferahgian attack on me, with fatuous claims about me, is not a good sign. Instead of condemning Echigo mole's harrassment, he has chosen to use Keystone Crow's RfAr as evidence against me. The idea that 3 meritless arbcom requests, two of them due to him and the first to a pernicous banned troll, must indicate something. Does TrevelyanL85A2 really think he can use the actions of a banned editor to make negative statements about me. It is hard to see any redeeming features in TrevelyanL85A2's editing. His account looks like a disruption-only account at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate was asked to stop commenting here by Newyorkbrad. [36] Instead of heeding that warning, he wikilawyered on NYB's talk page [37] and continued his pro-Echigo mole campaign here.[38] Mathsci (talk) 06:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad (and other arbitrators): Thank you very much for this clarification, which is a welcome relief to me as the victim of Echigo mole. During the arbcom review I was specifically asked about harassment on wikipedia and I gave a detailed response concerning both Echigo mole and Mikemikev. There was no corresponding finding. That has left matters open for continued disruption connected with Echigo mole's activities, in particular Echigo mole's fake Rfar, TrevelyanL85A2's declined Rfar and this joint RfAm of The Devil's Advocate (apparently prepared in consultation with TrevelyanL85A2). In the event that there is a motion concerning Echigo mole, please could it make an explicit statement about the history of long term harassment and the way in which this person has systematically tried to create problems? (In the review I indicated that he had even given evidence in the original 2010 R&I case as "IP from Sheffield".) Since the closure of the review, quite a lot of time on wikipedia has been consumed by the renewed activity of Echigo mole. It unfortuantely requires vigilance on my part because of his penchant for leaving clues as to my real life identity, which other users will not necessarily pick up on as quickly as me. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate was given a crystal clear warning by Newyorkbrad, as mentioned above. He has subsequently ignored that warning.[39] This problematic conduct is not very different from the disruption that precipitated his six month 911 topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2 seems to have broken his topic ban on his user talk page two more times now.[40][41] He appears to be breaking all the editing norms on wikipedia, including acting as a proxy for two site-banned users. He has written on his user talk page: " I don't know if I can get the arbitrators to understand the part of the problem for which Mathsci is responsible, but I want to try." That is a flagrant breach of his topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Devil's Advocate's latest edits concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole: Please could arbitrators instruct The Devil's Advocate to stop interfering with matters related to sockpuppets of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole? He removed Junior Wrangler from a list of suspected sockpuppets in the userspace of a declared alternative account where a provisional LTA file is stored (mainly before I had access to the tools to do searcher over IP ranges). Junior Wrangler's first edit to Spirella matches early A.K.Nole hoaxes, he edited Talk:Château of Vauvenargues; and the choice of username followed by low-level mathematics editing are typical A.K.Nole.[42] He also removed the "suspected sockpuppet" tag on User:Penny Birch.[43] This also seems to be an occarionally used, partially discarded account operated by Echigo mole. The timing of the creation is right, the choice of user name, the first edits like those of A.K.Nole and his friends (Kenilworth Terrace and Groomtech, first editing together as The Wiki House) concerned the University of Gloucestershire in Cheltenham. The editing on Talk:Château of Vauvenargues matches that of Junior Wrangler. The activities of both have been sporadic enough not to be susceptible to checkuser (like the editors creating hoaxes earlier this year on articles related to Aix-en-Provence and Rue Cardinale). The Devil's Advocate has been told to stay well away from anything concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole on wikipedia. Often the banned user's edits refer to my real life identity, sometimes my own publications or lectures. I don't really want The Devil's Advocate now digging about for details in edits which have not been deleted, unduly causing me distress and anxiety. That ahows no consideration for the problems connected with abusive wikihounding; in fact quitr the comtrary, these actions are disruptive and deliberately provocative, designed to cause offense. (That was already true of the Request for Amendment itself.) The Devil's Advocate should also stay out of the userspace of my alternative accounts. The instructions from Newyorkbrad on his talk page were very clear: that he should leave matters concerning Echigo mole/A.K.Nole well alone. At this stage, he seems to be doing the exact opposite of what arbitrators have requested him to do. He has needlessly made edits in the userspace of one of my alternative declared accounts reserved for recording information about Echigo mole socks and ip socks (in one edit summary The Devil's Advocate added the words WP:POLEMIC when removing a listed suspected sock). If he cannot avoid making edits like this related to Echigo mole and suspected socks, please could he now be blocked to stop further disruption and provocation? This has gone on long enough and it's only getting worse as he continues doing exactly the opposite of what he's been told. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More nonsense from The Devil's Advocate.[44] In that diff, he makes negative comments about Clavier-Übung III, which I understand is regarded as a well written article. I have no idea why The Devil's Advocate feels that he has to follow me around on wikipedia, making negative remarks like this. It's quite unhelpful. Perhaps he's trying to emulate Echigo mole as a wikihounder? One is quite enough. Mathsci (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cla68's comments about my wikistalker seem unhelpful and clueless. I hope that Newyorkbrad's motion is now enacted so that there is no possibility that any form of this time-wasting RfAm can occur at a future date. Let sleeping dogs lie. Mathsci (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2's priorities seem misplaced as far as the interests of wikipedia are concerned. There is no reason to distinguish between different socks of the same banned user, e.g. the ipsock 94.197.162.237, the sock Keystone Crow or the sock Rue Cardinale. The two edits I made on May 27 and the one edit on June 10 are no longer under discussion. Two arbitrators have commented on how to handle Echigo mole's disruption. TrevelyanL85A2 appears not to have heeded their comments. Instead he has tried to reopen and prolong a discussion concerning Echigo mole and his other favourite topic. [45][46][47] Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any edits in the IP ranges 94.197.1.1/16 and 94.196.1.1/16 that vaguely concern me have been made exclusively by Echigo mole. That is easy enough to check using the usual tools.[48] Arbitrators and other checkusers have long been aware of that. The negative nature of the edits of this banned user is not open for debate. On the other hand, in what now appear to be a series of calculated bad faith edits, The Devil's Advocate has taken the opposite point of view.[49] The Devil's Advocate appears to be spending his time justifying or enabling the edits of a community banned sock troll. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TrevelyanL85A2 has requested that The Devil's Advocate lobby arbitrators because he is still unsatisfied.[50] After a two week wikibreak, Trevlyanl85A2 has stated, "I think maybe if you go to one of the arbitrators about this, it should be someone other than Roger Davies. I don't trust Roger Davies to know how to resolve the current situation, because I think he has some responsibility for why it exists. He was the one who proposed that SightWatcher and I be given interaction bans with everyone who's edited R&I articles, at a time when I hadn't edited them in four months and SightWatcher hadn't edited them in a year." Mathsci (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens recused from this request.[51] It's not quite clear why he is commenting now. Mathsci (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens has unrecused himself. Could he please now comment on the issues concerning Echigo mole socks that other arbitrators have raised? No other arbitrators have made any suggestion that I have been "gaming the system", so Jclemens seems to be alone on that. Mathsci (talk) 05:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three users have initiated requests of this kind all related to the trolling of a banned user: Keystone Crow, TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate. All three of these editors are subject to restrictions of some type on their editing (e.g. the first is blocked as a sock of the banned user). If anybody has any bright ideas about how to stop Echigo mole and his socks creating disruption on wikipedia that would be welcome. Nobody has been able to so far. I don't edit in R&I nor did I start this request. My editing history is clear enough: mostly content edits in geometric function theory at the moment requiring a lot of effort. Vecrumba seems to have mistaken me for another user, I'm not quite sure who.Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad has suggested adding a second motion to AGK's motion. Since SightWatcher has now commented here in a highly problematic way, perhaps more is required. Previously SightWatcher was given this warning by an arbitrator [52] which at that stage apparently he took to heart.[53] Prior to that MBisanz and Ed Johnston gave SightWatcher unequivocal warnings that he would be given a lengthy block if his editing patterns did not change.[54] After a 6 week wikibreak he has ignored the warnings and made militating edits above that are indistingusihable from the project space edits of Captain Occam and Ferahgo-the-Assassin. With only 4 very minor content edits in the last 12 months, and now more evidence of proxy-editing and violations of his topic ban, even after mutiple warnings from administrators, what exactly is SightWatcher doing on this project apart from acting as a harassment-only account on behalf of site-banned users? Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this second motion, although it would be completely appropriate for the particular banned user under discussion here, would not be universally applicable for all banned users, as various administrators and arbitrators have pointed out. Perhaps a third motion could be crafted specifically tailored to the particular community banned user and this particular context. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Amendment 2 would provide R&I editors (and the banned user) with a tool to provoke Mathsci. Consideration of this amendment is not required now as there is no evidence of a problem (apart from the dilemma over whether WP:DENY should be applied to a banned user posting on the talk page of an R&I editor). If required, this matter can be addressed at some future time, if Mathsci becomes engaged in R&I topics with conduct that is believed to be unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TrevelyanL85A2: How does it help the encyclopedia to keep a message from a banned user? TrevelyanL85A2's comment at "01:40, 5 August 2012" was made just before removing the Sinebot signature of the banned user's name (diff)—why not remove the message? Hipocrite removed the message (rv banned user) and that edit summary explains the situation. Yet, without seeking clarification, TrevelyanL85A2 restored the message (Please do not remove edits others have made to my talk page without my consent. I keep an open door policy on my page, please respect my wishes). Editors are supposed to use Wikipedia to help the encyclopedia, and encouraging a banned user due to an "open door policy" is not a good use of a talk page. The question posed by Roger Davies at "11:08, 27 July 2012" remains unanswered. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "gaming" has been used a number of times, but I am perplexed by the recent mention of gaming at 03:13, 16 August 2012 by Jclemens. It is very understandable that Mathsci would want DENY applied to a long term abuser who has been harassing Mathsci—indeed, that's something we all should want, and there would be no issue if TrevelyanL85A2 did not insist on a right to keep comments from the banned user. I think Roger Davies (at 16:51, 3 August 2012) summed up the situation well with "to characterise Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming is really appalling".
Is it this comment by Mathsci (see thread here) that is regarded as "gaming"? That is just a plain description of what had occurred—TrevelyanL85A2 can easily avoid issues like that by not commenting on R&I: just stick to the question of whether there is a right to retain harassing comments. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silver seren

I'm not sure about whether the Amendments should or should not be enacted, though bullet 2 of Amendment 2 makes logical sense to me, because it's quite clear that there is evidence of a problem. Mathsci has been clearly gaming the system in order to remove perceived opponents from the topic area, taking actions that are sure to provoke a desired response so an Enforcement request can then be filed against the person. Seriously, at this point, I think everyone needs to truly consider blocking Mathsci for some period of time for his rampant and obvious gaming and, to be honest, harassment of other users. Silverseren^C 10:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: Whether the user is a sock or not, it was indeed appropriate for me to be notified, considering my involvement in the prior discussion, and the notification itself was neutral. Silverseren^C 11:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: I also restored the comment on my talk page, as did Penwhale on theirs. Any user is allowed to restore the edits of a banned user so long as they aren't a copyvio or attacking another user, per WP:BAN. Silverseren^C 22:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: It appears that Mathsci is enacting the "attack and discredit all of your opponents to win" tactic. Silverseren^C 01:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor marginalia: You should take care not to only quote the parts of the policy you like and ignore the rest, as BAN clearly states that any user is allowed to reintroduce the edits of a banned user so long as the edits do not violate our policies, are copyvios, or are attacking another person. And the attacking part is only for direct attacks. There's no Wikilawyering of "any edit by this person is an attack on this person" either, that would just be ridiculous. Silverseren^C 06:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor marginalia: No, they shouldn't because that's not the point of that section of BAN. The point is that any editor is free to reinstate an edit by a banned user so long as the edit doesn't violate other policies. Therefore, anyone is allowed to reinstate comments on their talk page by a banned user if they want to, as I have done multiple times before, as have others. Silverseren^C 01:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: In short: No. Silverseren^C 01:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, please don't use bold print like that; it's unspeakably rude. Second, please explain why you object to Newyorkbrad's comment(s). Thanks, AGK [•] 13:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because what he is suggesting is directly in conflict with the community written policy of WP:BAN and Arbcom has absolutely no jurisdiction over such. Any user is allowed to reinstate the edits of a banned user so long as the edit itself isn't violating other policies (copyvio, attacks, NPOV to some extent). In this case, Trev, myself, and others were reinstating a neutral message informing us of a discussion, which is something we are completely allowed to do within policy. Silverseren^C 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

Like I said above, MathSci probably needs to stay away from Trev's talk page. Beyound that, I am not sure what to do here.

And @Johnuniq: It was appropriate for me to be notified, considering my involvement in previous AE. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger: Trev has not posted on this thread because he was apparently requested to refrain from commenting. I trust that someone else should notify Trev in this case. (Also, he hasn't done much within the last week according to his contributions, so I am not sure what to take from it.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 13:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Roger: Ever since MBisanz posted this warning at WT:AC to SightWatcher, he's had no contributions, period. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

There is no conceivable way in which repeatedly restoring the user-talkpage edits of a banned harrassment sockpuppet helps the encyclopedia. Restoring such edits - or litigating their restoration - appears to be TrevelyanL85A2's sole focus on Wikipedia over the past 6 months.

Presumably, the previous ArbCom restriction was crafted in the hope that TrevelyanL85A2 would find something, anything to do on Wikipedia besides continue these old disputes. It's obvious that's not going to happen. Every further second spent on this is a second wasted, and frankly the sheer volume of vexatious litigation associated with this editor-or-group-of-affiliated-editors rivals anything I've seen in the post-Abd era. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A short statement by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

I concur with Penwhale that MathSci should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. However, I also concur with MastCell's observation that TrevelyanL85A2 has not contributed to Wikipedia in any meaningful way for the last six months. Indeed, TrevelyanL85A2 has not edited a single article since January 13, 2012.[55] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: As an editor completely uninvolved in R&I, I correctly pointed out that you participated in an edit-war. Your claim that I come to this page "in response to the trolling edits of Echigo mole as Rue Cardinale" is flatly wrong. This page is on my watchlist and has been for quite some time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: I find it ironic that you would accuse me of continuing "to make exaggerated claims" when you were the one to bring up the edit-warring, not me. Anyway, back to what I was saying, I think you should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. There's no need for you personally to remove these posts. Let someone else do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MathSci: I've made two points: 1) I agreed with Penwhale that MathSci should stay away from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page. 2) I agreed with MastCell's observation that TrevelyanL85A2 has not contributed to Wikipedia for the last six months. It was a very short statement. You're the one who keeps harping about edit-warring, not me. The battleground mentality that you're displaying for all the Arbs to see is highly disappointing, especially when you've already been admonished for this very same behavior. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@MathSci: Editors may participate within reason in dispute resolution and noticeboard discussions if their own conduct has been mentioned. By my own admittedly crude count, TrevelyanL85A2 has been mentioned by name over 30 times in this discussion, and I think that it's pretty clear that that the discussion on his talk page is a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK (as first proposer) and PhilKnight and Newyorkbrad (who voted in favor of this resolution), can you please explain why involved editors such as MathSci should be the only ones to enforce removal from TrevelyanL85A2's talk page? This seems to be the provervial 'elephant in the room.' Maybe this isn't your intent, but it is the result of the motion. Can you please explain further? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Professor marginalia

Games. Games. Games.

What's needed here is some serious introspection how the gaming (which is transparent, as I see it, and is frittering away frillions of hours of volunteer time here) can be curtailed. I don't have so much free time to give back to wikipedia lately but I'm here virtually every other day looking up something I want to know about. How does it seriously help this project to squander this much volunteer time in mindless, pointless bureaucratize over how and who to handle a site banned troll obviously stirring up crazy on another topic banned user's userpage? What difference does it make which editor removes those edits that which obviously don't belong here?

The last thing we need here is to give sanctioned troublemakers new avenues to disrupt. This has been a 2 years long clown circus already. Will restricting Mathsci from Trevelyan's talk page end this? How? Trevelyan's not the first - he's deliberately pressed those buttons to exploit the precedent when Ferahgo objected to Mathsci editing her talk page. And I'm half convinced she tacked that direction because she'd seen him chase editors off his own talk page. When others besides Mathsci removed the same comments, Trevelyan's objection persisted. Why except to escalate? Obviously Trevelyan'd read these comments already, and could return to them through edit history as we all appreciate as one of the strengths of this platform. So would it really result in less disruption to demand Mathsci appeal to a proxy to remove a banned troll's comments? How so? Off-site appeals, they won't like one bit and will decry as off-site collusion. On-site appeals they'll decry as "Mathsci who is restricted from such-and-such proxied the action be done by someone else".

To diagnose the games going on in R/I is difficult; blenderize reality TV, Tartuffe, Braveheart, Paddy Chayefsky, The Secret Agent, Scott Pilgrim and you'd get some sense of the aroma of the wikinutty that wafts in to wreak havoc with legit sourced content decision making. Mice at play. Then comes arbcom, and Bleak House gets tossed in the blender.

I think to curtail the gaming we need to stop rewarding it. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2012‎

Relevant policy position:

A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good [..] Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. (WP:BAN) Professor marginalia (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Silverseren: The sections I quote above make no reference to "attacks", expressed or implied. If an editor supports the message or content of an edit made by banned editor on a talk page they should sign their own name to it rather than further enable banned users to continue editing via socks. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad - Please make an motion to that effect. An unofficial statement from an arb won't be enough to deter disruption in these situations because key players are now using the trolling as openings. It's a ploy, much like we've seen over and over for more than 2 years. They aren't seeking constructive advice. It's all been about exploiting every opportunity. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Only in Death

I dont particularly want to be here as I have quite a bit of respect for Mathsci and his work, but his needling of his opponents is going to far. This [56] is particularly troubling for me as its basically taking potshots at TDA over a completely unrelated matter to himself (an issue with a GA review for gods sake) and he is using this request, and NYB's (and TDA's issue with them) comments below to do it. It contributes towards showing his relentless attack-mode mentality when he is pursuing a target and it needs to stop. Its got to the point where his actions are impacting on other editors, ones completely unrelated to his issues with his sockpuppet harrassers. And its totally un-necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wishes to look further, please check the history of WQA and Mathsci's talkpage. As he has requested I dont post to his talkpage because it 'disturbs his difficult content editing' I will not be taking his inapproprite spreading of his conflict further with him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - if anyone wishes to take up my actions in removing part of Mathsci's comments at WQA (someone else has reverted his edits here - no idea why), feel free to ask via email or on my talkpage as I do not want to disrupt this further by agitating Mathsci any more. Suffice to say I think the above interactions demonstrate why R&I case needs amending/clarifying as per TDA has outlined. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger - Just FYI, I respect Mathsci's wish to not have people post on his talkpage if he so chooses. Unfortunately I didnt see the request until after my second post at which point I promptly self-reverted it, although I suspect the damage was done and his concentration already broken for a second time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CIreland

Echigo mole is an extremely pernicious banned sockpuppeteer who has long pursued a vendetta against Mathsci; the very length of this behaviour must itself be disturbing for Mathsci. Additionally, Echigo mole has repeatedly attempted to intimidate Mathsci with "We know where you live" style edits, referencing Mathsci's place of residence.

One of the favorite tactics of Echigo mole is to seek out editors with whom MathSci is in dispute precisely to make it difficult for Mathsci to remove edits to their User talk pages without creating tension. This very amendment request, so far as it concerns Mathsci, enables and extends this abuse even if such was not the intent of the filer.

What is needed in order to address this long-standing problem is not any form of restriction or sanction for Mathsci but rather a remedy that prohibits the restoration of edits by Echigo mole's sockpuppets. Although such is not permitted by the current policy, I would personally like to see Revision Deletion of such edits allowed in order to mitigate against the possibility of editors not wholly aware of the background restoring problematic edits in good faith. Such good faith restorations have occurred in the past and have only served to further Echigo mole's agenda by drawing Mathsci into conflict. CIreland (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

I was not planning to comment here, but Roger Davies is asking me a question so I'll answer it.

There are two reasons I don't want Echigo Mole's posts in my user talk to be removed. First, I care about having the the right to decide what I do and don't want in my user talk, even if it's from a sock, as long as it doesn't violate policies. Echigo Mole's conduct elsewhere might be objectionable, but his posts in my user talk were just notifications or civilly-worded advice. Keeping it there doesn't violate WP:POLEMIC or anything else.

Second, I object to which editors are removing it and what I think their reason is. I would object much less if it were done by an uninvolved admin. Mathsci has said a few times he regards his dispute with me as an extension of his dispute with Ferahgo, and refers to me as "unfinished business". [57] The other editors removing the posts, Johnuniq and Hipocrite, also are Ferahgo's and Captain Occam's old opponents. It feels like this group is trying to perpetuate their old dispute in my user talk, and I don't want that.

This began when I had been trying to avoid this group of editors since January. After avoiding them and the R&I topic for a few months, I realized I could not do anything to make them leave me alone. Part of how I realized this was that I saw at the same time Mathsci also was removing posts from SightWatcher's user talk, and making new accusations about him in arbitration discussions, at a time when SightWatcher had avoided this group and the R&I topic for the past year. How can I ever escape this conflict if Mathsci even pursues people who had nothing to do with him and his articles for the past year? There is nothing I can do.

If you count the arbitration request the sockpuppet made in June, this is the third time this issue has been brought before ArbCom in two months. And each time, the group of editors objecting to Mathsci's conduct is a little larger than it was before. If the arbitrators decline to act on this request, what do they hope will happen? The community clearly is not able to resolve it. If ArbCom rejects this request now, it probably will just continue to grow and end up on their plate again in another month.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies: I didn't realize when "Rue Cardinale" commented in my user talk that this name meant something. However please note this was not one of the socks that Mathsci reverted. All of Mathsci's reverts in my user talk were of comments from socks that had inoffensive names, or were posting from IPs. As Mathsci never reverted this sock, it's inaccurate to say his reverts were justified because of its username.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by aprock

Short and sweet: Echingo Mole wins. A motion which clarifies his role in this soup stirring is about the only good that can come out of this mess. aprock (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Trev's excuses are noww bordering in ridiculous. He removes only the offending username[58] saying that the comment itself wasn't removed specifically by Mathsci [59]. But this was twice removed by mathsci, and reverted by Trev while asking Mathsci not to edit his talk page again[60][61], a petition that he repeated later.[62] That's why someone else removed it, because Trev didn't accept Mathsci's removals. Oh, wait, it's even more ridiculous that I thought. Trev is saying that community-banned harassing socks can post anything they like as long that specific edit doesn't make a harassment[63]. Please end this circus of excuses.

There are some obvious things that need to be made more obvious. Please make a motion saying explicitly and clearly that nobody should restore the edits of harassing socks, independently of who removes them. If Trev or anyone else restores any of those comments again, block them immediately and remove the comment. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a motion about people restoring the comments of harassing socks in their user pages? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

The only question worth answering here is if Mathsci (or anyone else) has the right to remove the comments of an abusive sockpuppeter per WP:DENY after having been restored and responcibility for them taken on by Trev.

if yes, Trev is to cease restoring the text when removed by someone (including Mathsci) citing WP:DENY.

if no, Mathsci (and others) are to cease removing restored edits and any harassment or incivility contained in the restored edits are Trevs to answer for as if he personally wrote them. If the restored edits breach Trev's topic ban, he is responcible for that too.

Everyone is just rehashing that question from different angles. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cla68

"TDA's stage management activities even more inappropriate"? Are you all focusing on the big picture here? Please don't shoot the messenger. Address the concern. Are your rulings being played? If so, fix it and ban the editor who is doing so. If not, say so and explain why. Use some critical thinking, avoid myopia, and interpret this situation to the vision you had when you first ran for Arbcom. Stay focused. Cla68 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do a banned editor's comments on some random usertalkpage necessarily constitute harassment? Cla68 (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in this diff is Mathsci's home address? How many of the offending diffs contain Mathsci's home address, and were they in response to Mathsci's actions? Look at both sides, please. Cla68 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, here in Japan in an automobile accident the authorities try to lay blame to both sides, because both sides usually deserve some blame. From reading the comments above, that is the situation here. I suggest using a sliding scale, what percentage to blame is the banned editor, and what percentage to blame is Mathsci and others? Assign a percentage, then give them an equivalent number of days vacation from Wikipedia. I guarantee you will see a change in their editing behavior. Cla68 (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SightWatcher

I just noticed what Arbcom is suggesting here. I know The Devil's Advocate asked me to not comment but I have something to say about AGK's proposed amendment.

TDA made this request to address the problem of how Mathsci can deliberately provoke me and Trevelyan, and we can't do anything about it because we aren't allowed to comment on his behavior. I don't see how the proposed amendment will address that problem. I assume Mathsci would be considered an editor who has "made significant contributions" to the R&I topic, so the amendment won't change anything meaningful about the situation that led to this request, and the situation will just continue until Arbcom has to deal with it again.

I'm very confused by Arbcom's reluctance to address what I see as the central issue, which is Mathsci's battleground behavior. In the recent request about Youreallycan, a few arbitrators said something that needs addressing about YRC's behavior is how he's trying to mount an offense against the editors criticizing him instead of addressing others' concerns about his behavior (see for example SirFozzie's comment here). AFAICT, the request was declined only because the RFC needs to finish first. How is Mathsci's recent behavior different from YRC's? In this thread seven other editors in addition to me and Trevelyan have taken issue with Mathsci's behavior: The Devil's Advocate, Penwhale, Silver Seren, A Quest for Knowledge, Only in Death, Vecrumba, and Cla68. Mathsci's response is several screens of text attacking these editors, including about things that have nothing to do with the requested amendment (such as The Devil's Advocate's topic ban from 9/11 articles). A few months ago Mathsci did the same thing in this thread and SilkTork warned him [64] that he was showing the same battleground attitude he'd just been admonished for. Mathsci dismissed SilkTork's warning as "trolling". [65] I expressed concern here that this meant Mathsci's behavior that SilkTork warned him about was going to continue, and I was right.

Arbcom knows that an admonishment and then an additional warning from an arbitrator wasn't enough to change Mathsci's battleground behavior, and they think this behavior needs addressing when someone else does it. The community also seems to be being very clear that they think Mathsci's behavior is a large part of the problem. Arbcom has a responsibility to serve the community, and they have a responsibility to be consistent about what type of behavior is allowed. It seems like they also should care about finding a solution that won't make them have to keep dealing with the same situation again and again. -SightWatcher (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2

Statement by Guerillero

I strongly urge the arbs to reject the newest motion. As Silk Tork correctly pointed out, any editor can restore edits made by a banned editor or edit on a banned editor's behalf if they take responsibility for the edit(s) and independently think that the edits are allowed under the other wikipedia polices (WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors and WP:BAN#Conduct towards banned editors). The motion, especially this sentence "Editors are hereby warned that restoring the reverted edits of site-banned former users is not only strongly discouraged but may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment.", rewrites this policy. Open a RfC if you must but please don't write new policy. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Your proposal for a third motion sounds in line with current policy and arbcom's scope. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gimmetoo

Concur with Guerillero. By phrasing the motion in general, the motion goes against current policy and common sense. So if a banned user makes an edit fixing a typo, and some editor undoes that typo fix, this motion would say every other editor is "strongly discouraged" to revert to fix that typo, and it "may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment"? What was going though the minds of the arbs that supported this? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Roger Davies, Casliber. In "A is not only B but may also be C", "may" only restricts C, not B. It's the same as "A is B and may be C". Fortunately it appears you've moved on, though the new motion has different problems. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Heim

I'm totally sympathetic to this motion, but it's problematic because it appears to go further than existing policy states. There's no question that sometimes allowing a banned user's edits is necessary, per Gimmetoo. I also don't think it's necessary to state that restoring banned users' edits is very often disruptive and can lead to sanctions; that's already pretty clearly in policy as written. It all needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. Instead of some general note which either reaffirms existing policy (not necessary) or writes new policy (out of scope), go directly to sanctioning or admonishing the editors responsible in this case, which seems pretty clearly against policy (restoring talk page comments by a serial harasser seem clearly afoul of "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits", which is there in the policy right now, no motion needed). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrevelyanL85A2

I predict I'll have more to say after the new motion gets posted, but at the moment I have something to say about Roger's comment "There's also a world of difference between restoring content and restoring the post lock, stock and barrel, especially when the banned user has used the username as the way of delivering the toxic payload." As soon as Roger Davies pointed out in this thread that the name "Rue Cardinale" was inappropriate, I removed that part of the post. I'm sorry I didn't remove it faster, but I didn't realize this was an offensive username until Roger mentioned that. Is it appropriate to punish me for how long I took to remove the offensive username, when I removed it as soon as I learned that was the right thing to do?

As I said above, this was not one of the socks that Mathsci reverted. Therefore, how socks with inappropriate usernames should be handled is a separate issue from Mathsci's treatment of me in my user talk, in Jclemens' user talk, and at AN and AE. Even if I get no additional sanctions in this thread, having the thread closed with only a general warning still punishes me indirectly. The issue that TDA tried to raise in this thread has completely sapped my motivation to edit for a few months, so it would also be a sort of punishment for ArbCom to decide they don't care about it and to let it continue. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles and Elen, please listen to what Mathsci said below. Echigo Mole's posts that I restored had nothing to do with race and intelligence, and he was banned by the community for socking, not because of anything R&I related. As far as I know, he hasn't edited race and intelligence articles ever. Everything involving Echigo Mole does not really relate to race and intelligence. The only way this issue involves R&I is that Mathsci's degree of attention to me might be because he and I both edited those articles in the past, and I'm not allowed to say anything about him because of my R&I topic ban. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-sorry wrong area

Modified Motion 2 (on restoring reverted edits)

Comment by Mathsci

Perhaps the punctuation in the motion could be slightly modified so that it is clear that "banned editors" covers sockpuppets of Echigo mole. He was banned by the community but not banned under sanctions related to WP:ARBR&I. His edits have been the only ones to have caused problems so far, e.g. as Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Courcelles' formulation below has the advantage of specifically naming Echigo mole. Even if it feeds the troll, it does seem to be what is required here. His proposal is also completely in line with what NYB has been suggesting. If I understand correctly, Newyorkbrad's intention through any such a motion was to create a means of ending once-and-for-all the cycle of disruption connected with Echigo mole's edits that started almost as soon as the R&I review was closed. Mathsci (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate is calling the edits of Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) innocuous and refers to the reversion of his edits as "an obscenely strict interpretation of WP:BAN by Mathsci and other editors". The RfAr "Mathsci and Echigo Mole" was immediately deleted by Courcelles, the Keystone Crew account checkuser blocked, confirmed simultaneously as Echigo mole on User talk:Keystone Crow by Roger Davies, with an official rubber stamp 2 hours later from JamesBWatson at WP:SPI. Roger Davies has explained to The Devil's Advocate how complex it is sorting out serial sockpuppetry, harassment and wikihounding. The Devil's Advocate still seems to be editing here as if his original amendments might be passed. He has ignored all comments from arbitrators, even those specifically addressed to him. He is continuing to make outspoken comments about issues involving Echigo mole's sockpuppetry: on this page he is giving his own "expert" evaluation of whether outing might have occurred and sharing his views on whether every attempt to deal with possible wikihounding issues has been successful. Please could this stop? Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as this page is concerned the account of The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a disruption only trolling account. What more can be said? Mathsci (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No arbitrator has criticized reverting any of the edits of Keystone Crow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Why is The Devil's Advocate wasting everybody's time by promoting the edits of a community banned sock troll? Why is he twisting events in such an untruthful way? Arbitrators have patiently explained to him the pernicious nature of Echigo mole's edits. That has not registered after almost two months. In his appeal at WP:AE against a six month 911 topic ban, The Devil's Advocate presented a similarly distorted version of events which favoured himself and attempted to place others in a poor light. He was warned about his language there but failed to understand the warnings. (A typical example addressed to Cailil: "For fuck's sake! Once someone throws out the mass-murdering cannibal rapist comparison, I would think any half-decent admin would notice then immediately toss aside all procedural gobbledygook and act like a human being. It was harassment, not a personal dispute. You people have no credibility.") [66] There's very little difference between that outburst and his attention-seeking "performance" here. Does he really believe that changing his "amendments" into "motions" makes them any more acceptable? This pattern of repeatedly asking for the same thing having been told "no" is a severe case of WP:IDHT. The latest motion being proposed provides a means of handling any similar disruption in the future, whether he agrees with it or not. Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Advocate most recent post now is misrepresenting arbitrators and administrators. He is already on his second topic ban this year (the first was imposed in February because of disruption connected with article rescue). Here are Courcelles' edits. [67][68] Here is what Roger wrote.[69] And here is the result of the SPI report "for the record", closed by JamesBWatson.[70] Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me The Devil's Advocate should read the comments that MastCell wrote on Risker's talk page (partially quoted below). They apply equally to him, motion or no motion. He was mentioned in the same diff. These "last minute stunts" of TrevelyanL85A2 and The Devil's Advocate seem ill-advised. Both of them risk being blocked if they continue to use Echigo mole's wikihounding as a means of harassing me. Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

I am going to reiterate that this is not really about banned editor comments. Mathsci could have engaged Trev in some other area on some other issue in a manner that would reasonably cause Trev distress and the problem would be the same. The current restriction means Trev cannot complain about an editor directly engaging him in a manner that causes him distress if that editor has made any contributions deemed to be R&I-relevant. We are here because of that, not because of a banned editor's comments being restored. I would also like to reiterate that Roger Davies, who is the Arb that has been spearheading this attempt at making the request about comments from banned editors, actually described identical conduct by Math as battleground behavior during the review case so there are mixed messages being sent on that point.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting here for ease of reference. I'll repeat what I've just posted on my talk page about this. "I have since reconsidered. The primary factor was EM's use of a home address as a user name. This is outing, which ups the ante considerably, and that trumps by a large measure any minor misconduct. Another factor is that the sockmaster has subsequently been formally site-banned, which changes the position considerably with regard to reverting his edits." Roger Davies ^talk 21:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the edits that initiated this did not contain any personal information whatsoever regarding Math with the sock you are talking about only showing up after this request was initiated. Secondly, Math's "home address" was not used, but the street where Math lives. Thirdly, Math plainly stated many times that he lives on that street since this first came up months prior so it is not an "outing" issue that a sock subsequently used it as a username and signature. Fourthly, the only reason the username entered into the equation is because that sock restored the IP sock's own comments to Trev's talk page and a bot auto-signed it despite there already being a signature from the previous sock. Finally, the moment you alerted Trev to the username containing personal information he removed that signature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trevelyan reinstated for no better reason than he keeps "an open door policy on [his] page". Per policy, he assumes responsibility for any reverted posts he reinstates. Roger Davies ^talk 22:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you have not demonstrated how Trev has actually failed to honor policy by doing so in this case as I plainly explained above. Even if you try to use the incident subsequent to me filing this request, Sinebot actually added the personal information about Mathsci by adding the new sock's signature to that comment because the bot did not recognize that the comment was already signed by the previous IP sock and the other editors simply removed and restored the material without giving much thought to the matter. Once you noted the issue with that signature, Trev removed it. The argument for Trev having engaged in some violation of policy involves nothing but conflating actions of Echigo mole elsewhere with actions in a specific instance where there is no clear harm except that brought on by an obscenely strict interpretation of WP:BAN by Mathsci and other editors. As an example of the problem with that interpretation, in the not-too-distant past Mathsci reverted the addition of a space between a variable and a colon at a math article on the basis of WP:BAN.

Clearly there are instances where this restriction would have an exceedingly punitive result should someone decide changes made by an Echigo sock are actually appropriate and reinstate them. There is a pretty compelling case to be made that editors frequently abuse the presence of a sock in a dispute as a way to win out in a content discussion or to shut down criticism of their conduct and I believe Mathsci's actions are a textbook case of that abuse. Enabling such exploitation further by creating new punitive restrictions against any editors who have a good-faith belief that a banned editor's actions in a specific case are harmless, rather than removing the existing punitive restriction that has made possible the disruption my request is specifically meant to address, is not going to prevent Echigo mole from causing havoc. Far from it, it will be a boon to Echigo who will simply use it as a way to create further distress in the hopes that it will eventually see Mathsci removed from the project.

Again, the whole matter is nothing but a sideshow. The push for some restriction regarding restoration of comments by Echigo mole is a misdirected effort that does not address the actual problem highlighted by this incident.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math, I only clearly noted your reversion of several IP socks so your narrow focus on Keystone Crow appears to be an attempt at misdirection. That you reverted the addition of a space between a colon and a variable on the basis of WP:BAN clearly illustrates that you have taken this argument to an extreme in the past. I don't think you can provide any suitable explanation for how you could perceive the addition of a space between a colon and a variable as harassment. As to my comments about outing, they specifically pertain to the claims regarding the comment on Trev's talk page as that is being used to wrongly accuse Trev of outing and does not pertain to some general question of whether Echigo has engaged in outing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math, I ask you to stop misrepresenting the facts. No arbitrator said anything about the Keystone Crow account specifically, but during the Review case Roger explicitly stated that your removal of comments by other socks from the talk pages of other R&I editors was battleground behavior. While Roger states that he no longer sees it that way, he has still clearly stated during the course of this amendment request that you should not be doing it and at least one other Arb, Brad, has said the same thing. Clearly there is criticism regarding, at the very least, your removal of these comments.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems Math may have misunderstood, I was referring to the claim Mathsci made about the Arbs not criticizing the reverts of Keystone Crow. I was not saying that Arbs have not said anything about the account at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of the suggested motion

Although, I still object to this motion, since it seems likely to be implemented I would note that the wording " . . . the edits or the content of edits made by users banned or topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence" is problematic from a variety of perspectives. For one, Echigo mole has not been subject to any sanction connected with Race and Intelligence so it would not even technically apply to what we are talking about and there are a number of other issues. I would suggest the wording be amended to say " . . . the edits or the content of edits where there is a reasonable suspicion that the edits were made by a banned editor named in the review case" as that wording is so tight it easily covers the issue we are discussing (Echigo mole was explicitly mentioned in the review case) and "reasonable suspicion" accounts for the concerns Jclemens raised.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested motions

In the hope of getting my main request addressed I am putting forward wording for a motion I would like to see enacted regarding the restriction against Trev and Sight.

The wording of the restriction on SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 is replaced with "is indefinitely banned from making edits related to Race and Intelligence broadly construed across all namespaces. 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."

This eliminates the "comment on conduct" restriction and provides a road to appeal that is identical to that accorded to Ferahgo and Occam.

Since people keep saying they think Mathsci should not be editing these user talk pages I also would suggest another motion stating "Mathsci is advised to refrain from editing the userspace of editors sanctioned in respect of Race and Intelligence."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Johnuniq

Response to comments just above by The Devil's Advocate.

Is anyone seriously suggesting that a known troll is posting innocuous messages at Trev's talk? Messages that need to be retained? Someone like TDA should volunteer to monitor likely talk pages and revert such trolling themselves. DENY is all we have, and the mountains of pointless discussion about whether trolling should be restored by a "good faith" editor is nonsense—protecting the liberty of editors to restore what they want is not the role of Wikipedia. What would help would be for someone like TDA to take the time to explain to Trev that there is nothing personal when the victim of harassment reverts messages from a banned user. We understand that Trev would prefer certain opponents to keep away, but many of us would prefer Trev to revert the provocations once it is clear what they are—we can't all have what we want. Any suggestion that Mathsci is purposely reverting a banned user in order to poke the "owner" of the talk page is bizarre, although I agree with comments made elsewhere that it would be better if someone other than Mathsci would do the removal because that would assist DENY (giving the troll less thrill). But it is not easy for others to notice the subtle provocations, and there is no good way to proceed. Actually, there is one good way—just apply WP:RBI and impose sanctions on anyone supporting the harassment after due warning, but I suppose that would be too obvious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Professor marginalia

In the interest of reducing—as opposed to expanding—the hundreds of hours volunteers wasted babysitting silly games like these [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86]—— I think rather than imposing new terms which open new doors for gaming (banned and sanctioned users are likely brainstorming already), I'd urge a "last chance" warning be given saying the next time any of them play any more games like this they'll be banned indefinitely. And if they can't endure to have Mathsci, MastCell, Hipocrite or Johnuniq reverting the trolls? And that they simply must insist somebody else do it instead? I'd urge them instead to "get over it". It's a revert forcryingoutloud and there's no need (indeed, given the enormous time wasted babysitting these users already, it's unreasonable to even ask) that others bend over backwards, to double their work by requiring anybody transfer the task to another party. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TrevelyanL85A2. I don't see anybody here being "sanctioned"-yet. I do see attempts to draft a remedy that will "get through" some thick heads and bring an end to this madness. Two thirds of your edits for the past 2 years (on the heels of Captain Occam/Ferahgo's topic ban) have been spent mixed up in R/I drama. The troll posting on your user page was stirring up more R/I drama...and you wouldn't let it go away. And it's resulted in another 4? 5 months in dispute resolution? For every substantive edit to the project you've made elsewhere during this 2 year period, there are literally dozen of editors with dozens of edits each pulling time away from other things to deal with these petty, schoolyard antics. It's ridiculous! Stop. Move on. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TrevelyanL85A2-what do I think? I think you need to find something else to do with your wikipedia time than look for ways to "get even" with Mathsci. Or "get even" with anybody/everybody else who's caught you out (justifiably, I might add). Something else to do with your time than to try and piggy-back your grievances unto cases such as Miradre (another justifiably "called out" editor) for further reindeer gaming here. What I think is that the next time a post to your user page advising you how to "play a game" is reverted for being from a banned user you ..... let it go. Ignore it all. If you really want to contribute here, stop looking for ways to cause pointless crazy. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@TrevelyanL85A2-re: clarification-What do you mean, "tried leaving everything related to R/I alone for months"? You've done virtually nothing else for the past nine months. You had absolutely no edits since Jan 13 - returning in May just to to battle with Mathsci over the banned troll! Mathsci was DENYing a banned user, not harassing you. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by TrevelyanL85A2

I hope this is the right place to respond to the two comments above, it's hard to tell when the discussion is so fragmented. Both of you seem to assume that restoring Echigo Mole's posts in my user talk is something unusual that only a few people have done, or only people who are connected to R&I. It isn't. Offhand I can think of five other editors who have restored his comments in their user talk: Collect, [87] [88] Trödel, [89] [90] Nyttend, [91] [92] [93] Silver Seren, [94] and Penwhale. [95] There probably are more than that, but those are the five I can remember. None of these editors were involved parties in the R&I case or review, or have been sanctioned for anything related to R&I. Two of them, Nyttend and Penwhale, are admins.

I don't see how what I did is any different, but Mathsci singled me out about it, and now ArbCom also has singled me out. I'd like to know why. The sanction being voted on also will cover SightWatcher, who did not restore any posts by Echigo Mole. Why are you sanctioning a completely different group of editors from those who did the behaviour you consider a problem? --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 04:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor marginalia: What do you think I could do that would make a difference? I explained in my first statement in this thread that I already tried leaving everything related to R&I disputes alone for several months, and SightWatcher left it alone for a year. However, at the time when we'd avoided Mathsci and his articles for months, that didn't cause him to pay any less attention to either of us or stop trying to get us sanctioned. I also saw what happened to Miradre last year, who was an even better example. When Miradre tried to escape his dispute with Mathsci on R&I articles, Mathsci just brought his dispute to the articles Miradre was editing outside that topic area. I've learned that when an editor has made enemies in the R&I topic area, it will continue to affect them no matter what they do after that, even if they have avoided the topic for the past year or made no edits at all for a few months. I don't know what it would take to stop this drama, and I wish I knew, but experience shows that trying to avoid/ignore it isn't enough. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Professor marginalia: In January, Mathsci and a few other people complained about an edit I made on the human intelligence template that seemed constructive and noncontentious to me. I got warned about discretionary sanctions on R&I articles for that edit, and the admin who warned me said I should stay away from R&I articles. I didn't really understand why everyone was making such a big deal about it, and I decided to just stay away from Wikipedia completely a few months. That's why I made no edits between January and May, and it's what I mean when I say I left it alone for a few months. I would have stayed away for longer, but in May I discovered that people were still attacking me for my former involvement in R&I.

I'm not talking about Mathsci's reverts in my user talk, but rather his repeatedly bringing me up during the review and in this thread afterwards, even though by then I'd been disengaged from everything at Wikipedia for the past four months. Mathsci credits his doing this for my being sanctioned: [96] "In the end it worked and arbcom bit the bullet." When Mathsci was attacking SightWatcher in the same places, SightWatcher had made no edits related to him or R&I since May 2011. However, even at a time when SightWatcher had been disengaged from Mathsci and his articles for the past year, Mathsci still was bringing up accusations about him in arbitration discussions. I've learned from this that no matter how long an editor has avoided R&I disputes, whatever enemies they made on those articles will never leave them alone. --TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 23:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by Mathsci

On User talk:Risker MastCell wrote,[97] "If it makes things any easier for you guys, I can tell you that the next time I see TrevelyanL85A2 or one of his close associates do anything remotely resembling enabling Echigo mole's harassment campaign, I'm going to block him indefinitely." That is exactly what is happening now. TrevelyanL85A2 was already blocked for one month for trying the above. According to his editing history, unfortunately it appears now that that is all he wants to do on wikipedia. He knows he cannot discuss me on wikipedia, so what does he do? He comes here and does exactly what he's prohibited from doing. Now apparently he claims that he's being persecuted because he's amongst six editors who had the fake notifications of Keystone Crew reverted from their user talk pages.[98][99][100][101][102] I didn't have to remove the notification on my talk page, because the admin Akhilleus kindly told me that the request had been nuked and the poster indefinitely blocked.[103][104] This RfAr was designed to scare me. Why then is TrevelyanL86A2 is doing his best to interpret those reverts in a bad light, as he has done repeatedly, and trying to claim quite falsely that he was singled out? WP:BAN is exactly for disruptive edits of this kind. TrevelyanL85A2's restored the edits twice to his page after they were reverted by me, Johnuniq and BullRangifer while he was under a one month WP:AE block. His talk page access was revoked for edit warring over edits of a banned user and the talk page protected by MastCell for the duration of the block.[105] So what actually happened is quite different from what TrevelyanL85A2 has written. Mathsci (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrevelyanL85A2 isn't allowed to mention anybody involved in R&I editing. And yet above he's now started making unsupported claims concerning Miradre, who was involved in the review, but has nothing to do with the discussion here This request was started by The Devil's Advocate with help from the wings from TrevelyanL85A2. They communicated off-wiki. I did not start this request for amendment and have not been seeking sanctions, since I have made no suggestions. MastCell has made a comment about TrevelyanL85A2 coming close to an indefinite block, not me. TrevelyanL85A2 is now using this request as a means of continuing the campaign of his site-banned friends. He has made the serious error above of discussing Miradre, who has nothing whatsover to do with him, this request for amendment or the issues he claims to have been worrying about. By opening a new discussion about other editors involved in R&I, he has not only violated his topic ban even further; but his excuse that he that he was trying to clarify matters for himself would appear not have been made in good faith. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The initiator of this request has just been blocked for 2 weeks for violating their WP:ARB911 topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (on restoring reverted edits 3) discussion

Comment by The Devil's Advocate

I am concerned that the wording of this motion is so exceedingly broad and restrictive as to be disruptive towards work to improve the encyclopedia. For one, "banned editor" is not clearly limited in the wording of the motion to the likes of Echigo mole and Mikemikev, but appears to be just a reference to all banned editors without consideration for whether they have any connection to this case at all. Second, the sanctions are described as applying to any reverted edit by such editors that "relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic" and that creates a whole recipe of trouble as "indirectly" can mean just about anything. Additionally by saying "related . . . to any editor associated with the R&I topic" one could take this as making pretty much every article to which these editors contribute subject to discretionary sanctions regarding the reverting of any edits made by any banned editors. Lastly, by making this apply to any editor it basically means that someone with no connection whatsoever to R&I can go to an article that has no connection to R&I, restore an edit made by a banned editor who has no connection with R&I, and then be subject to discretionary sanctions under R&I if the edit is seen as "indirectly related to an editor associated with R&I" because of this motion.

Honestly, I think any sort of general restriction on this question of restoring comments from banned editors is going to create more disruption then it will prevent. The disruption that prompted this request was not the result of a banned editor leaving comments or someone restoring those comments. Many editors who had such comments placed on their pages restored them without any serious problems resulting. What separated those editors from Trev is that all of them were allowed to complain about the conduct of the editors removing those comments. I submit that it is precisely because Trev's restriction barred him from complaining about their conduct that all of this has come about.

On that point I do have an idea for a middle-ground that should be satisfactory. Specifically, modify the restriction to say that it will not apply in situations where the other party initiated the interaction. In other words, Mathsci can't go to Trev's talk page and do something without Trev being able to complain about it, while Trev will be blocked if he goes out of his way to interact with Mathsci.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that, despite Trev's indefinite block, I still think this restriction needs addressing to prevent a repeat of this sort of situation in the future with Sight or Trev should he get unblocked at some point. Things would have been much simpler if Trev had simply been able to say "hey, this editor won't leave my talk page alone!" No need would have arisen for AE cases, arbitration requests, amendment requests, and so on if Trev had simply been able to complain that an editor was engaging him in a way that bothered him. Common sense and sensitivity have to come into play regarding sanctions.

On another note, in the interests of full disclosure, Trev has sent me another e-mail in which he requested an RFC/U against Mathsci. While that is a course of action I have already considered may eventually be necessary should he continue the sort of conduct evidenced through the duration of this case, I have no intention at this time of pursuing such a measure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math, Trev has not been "site-banned" and I am sure you understand the difference between an indefinite block and a site-ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tijfo098

It looks like ArbCom collectively is engaging in tons of pointless WP:BURO on this. Why don't you guys indef block Trevelyan? That should be warning enough for anyone repeating that line of behavior. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"no editor may restore any <reverted edit made by a banned editor> which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic." How indirectly you don't say... GovCom gone nuts. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Mathsci

Roger Davies' motion is well-crafted. Now, however, it is addressing a problem which has solved itself. Echigo mole's socking appears to have fizzled out and TrevelyanL85A2 has been blocked indefinitely at WP:AE for violating his topic ban.[106][107][108][109][110] Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TrevelyanL85A2's responses at WP:AE, listed above, clearly crossed a line. As on this page, he showed a blatant disregard for his topic ban. There are no mitigating features at all in his recent editing history. Zilch. His account, with the active encouragement of The Devil's Advocate, regressed to an attack-only account. It would seem that two things could happen if The Devil's Advocate continues his own disruptive activities. Firstly TrevelyanL85A2's talk page access could be removed if he responds to The Devil's Advocate's provacative remarks there. Any response would be a continuation of the conduct for which he was site-banned. Secondly, motion number 3 has already technically passed. If The Devil's Advocate continues commenting as he is doing here and attempts to act further as a proxy-editor for TrevelyanL85A2 on wikipedia, he could find himself subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBR&I. Mathsci (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse due to previous AE amongst other things. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the clerks to delist the motion concerning Wording of Race & Intelligence Review topic-ban remedies, because it is unsuccessful. AGK [•] 10:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse on the second motion per my above comment. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statements. However, I would clarify that while Mathsci has e-mailed the committee regarding this matter, no private statement or evidence has been taken into consideration. Only under certain circumstances do we receive private evidence or hold proceedings in camera. AGK [•] 01:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to Amendment 1, I have proposed a motion below. AGK [•] 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In relation to Amendment 2, I will say only that I do not think this issue needs to be re-examined, and at this time I will not be proposing (nor supporting) a motion that grants the request in Amendment 2. AGK [•] 23:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll recuse, even though I've only ever interacted with these editors and this topic as an uninvolved administrator, my efforts to keep all parties working constructively have been dismal failures of the bitten-hand variety, resulting in the recent attempt to name me as a party the last time this matter showed up here. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mathsci pointed out that I'd recused, which I'd forgotten. Since my recusal was elective in the first place, I appear to have de facto rescinded it by voting on the motion. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The editors who are already banned and topic-banned need to abide by the prior rulings, and editors who are proxying for them or carrying on on their behalf need to stop. While the banning policy contemplates that editors in good standing may, in effect, sponsor and adopt edits made by banned users, I strongly recommend (and we may want to adopt this in a decision) that people not do so with respect to this particular topic, because the behavior that led to some of these bans was egregious and the edits are generally not helpful. Mathsci should stay away from the talkpages of his adversaries (reverting edits from banned users on those pages can safely be left to others), but other than that, I don't see the need for any remedy against him at this time. Finally, the involvement of at least one of the passersby in this dispute has been unhelpful, and I hope those who have acted inconsistently with the preceding suggestions will stop doing so before we have to start calling out names. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- People continue to defend the practice of accepting and responding to posts from obvious sockpuppets of the banned users in this area, and reverting them back onto their userpages when they are deleted. Whether or not this practice might be acceptable under the banning policy in other contexts, given all the background here it is encouraging the banned users to continue their disruptive and harassing behavior, and therefore is not permissible. The editors who have commented in this discussion are therefore directed to refrain from any further on-wiki communication with the banned users on any page on Wikipedia (including their talkpages), and not to reinstate any comments by the banned users that may be removed by others, regardless of any claimed justification for doing so under any policy or guideline that, in less toxic contexts, might otherwise apply. At the moment, this is simply a friendly but firm suggestion from an individual arbitrator, but I'll be glad to offer a formal motion to this effect, enforceable by significant and increasing blocks, if that is what becomes necessary to put an end to this disruption. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Various questions:
- @ Mathsci: I'm not seeing "banning" people from your talk page as being helpful. Why not simply remove the messages after you've read them?
- @ The Devil's Advocate: Are you seriously suggesting Mathsci is gaming the system when he reverts the posts of a banned user who has long been harassing him and posting non-public information about him?
- @ Trevelyan In the light of WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:USERBIO, why do the named topic-banned editors believe such messages should be retained on their talk pages? (Could a clerk mention to them that I've asked this please and ask for their responses?)
Otherwise, I reiterate what Brad has said. Roger Davies ^talk 11:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify the core issues, the various guidelines (WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:USERBIO) and essay (WP:DENY) discussed here simply reinforce the relevant policy:
  Given the clear policy position, it is a mystery to me why any of the editors who restored the posts could possibly think they were doing the right thing, especially when by restoring they were validating and endorsing the banned editor's posts. As this is about the thirtieth process involving the original topic-banned editors, and their successors, I agree entirely with Brad that robust measures are becoming increasingly appropriate. Roger Davies ^talk 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Penwhale: I know that SW's last edit was a month ago. It makes TDA's stage management activities even more inappropriate. Roger Davies ^talk 16:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Silver Seren. You are misinformed:
  - ArbCom is explicitly authorised by policy to: "interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced". Obviously, that applies to your interpretation of banning policy.
  - The Banning policy does indeed provide an element of discretion over reversion when it says: "this does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". However, it seems to me that the policy's context is "obviously helpful" article edits rather than clerking of ArbCom matters by a banned user. Furthermore, in this particular instance, it seems to me probable the "helpful messages" were simply a ruse to deliver a covert toxic payload at Mathsci's expense in a seemingly innocuous parcel.
  There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume good faith for anything this particular serial harasser/sockmaster posts. Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: The Suspected Socks sideshow I know that Mathsci has been sorely harassed, and for a protracted period, and that the tags say "suspected sockpuppet" but I would have thought a SPI report/CU check were probably the minima here. Can we completely drop this now? Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: TrevelyanL85A2 He's mentioned here and elsewhere. How, as part of the broader discussion, is he breaching a topic ban? That said, to characterise Mathsci's reversion of harassment by a banned editor as gaming is really appalling. Roger Davies ^talk 16:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @CLA68. Yes, beyond doubt, when the username posting them is the street where their longterm victim lives. Roger Davies ^talk 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerrillo: Disagree. You claim that "Editors are hereby warned that restoring the reverted edits of site-banned former users is not only strongly discouraged but may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment" re-writes policy. Which policy is being re-written? If the original material outs, or threatens, or harasses, or is a personal attack, or a copyvio, or whatever, by restoring/reinstating it, the restoring/reinstating editor repeats the original misconduct and may face consequences. Equally, if in the process of restoring/reinstating, the editor edit-wars or breaches an interaction ban or a topic ban, or starts a flame war, then that may be in and of itself disruptive. And again equally, if the restored/reinstated material is genuinely innocuous (fixing a typo or whatever) and the restoring/reinstating acts correctly, there are no consequences for the editor restoring/reinstating it. As Cas points out, the key word is "may". Roger Davies ^talk 04:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, what you have written goes considerably beyond what the banning policy says about reinstating edits of banned users, too much so for such a generically worded motion. If the motion was rewritten in such a way that it clearly was case-specific (and preferably even editor-specific), I'd probably support. Yes, sure, reinstating harassment and outing and threats is inappropriate; however, the policy is clear that anyone reinstating such material is completely responsible for those edits — and therefore is personally responsible for the threats, harassment or outing, and should be treated acccordingly (most likely with a block or ban). But that's not the emphasis of the motion, which is on reinstatement of *any* edits. Turn it around, so that the emphasis is on the threats, harassment, outing etc, noting that there is no difference between an edit originating with a particular user or one that reinstates an edit originating with a different user. The problem is the content being added, regardless of who puts it there. Risker (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risker: no, the motion doesn't go further than policy. Editors restoring the reverted edits have to be damn sure that they are not breaching policy and that may not be easy to detect. For instance, it is not unheard of for banned editors to make seemingly innocuous edits simply to prove a point (which is itself disruptive, even if the individual edits are kosher). There's also a world of difference between restoring content and restoring the post lock, stock and barrel, especially when the banned user has used the username as the way of delivering the toxic payload. Roger Davies ^talk 05:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I remain unclear why you're unwilling to be case-specific in this motion. I have proposed an alternate on the mailing list to see if folks can live with it before posting it here; not that I'm trying to keep things a big secret, but I find that competing motions only muddy the water further and reduce the chance of reaching consensus. It also gives the opportunity of doing a bit of wordsmithing before people start voting on it. As an aside, we should probably find a way to do this kind of tinkering with wording and sending up trial balloons onwiki, but I've yet to figure out how to do it effectively. Risker (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Risker: I'm not unwilling at all. My view was that a firmly worded warning would bring people to their senses without actually needing to introduce sanctions. Roger Davies ^talk 05:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Then we differ on that, Roger; I think that sanctions are entirely appropriate in this case, and are probably long overdue. The fact that we've had the case itself and numerous AEs and requests for clarification/amendment makes it clear in my mind. Risker (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motions: Race & Intelligence

Motion: Wording of Race & Intelligence Review topic-ban remedies

Motion failed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

For reference, the two topic-ban remedies in question are worded as follows:

6.1) SightWatcher (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, 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.

7.1) TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, 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.

Proposed:

In remedies 6.1 and 7.1 of the Race and intelligence Review, SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 were banned from:

"participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have worked in the topic"

That sentence is replaced by:

"participating in any discussion concerning the conduct of editors who have made significant contributions to the topic".

Support

Proposed. As usual, whether a specific user who falls within the grey area between minor editing and long-term editing is a "significant contributor" will be a decision for the community's administrators (at WP:AE). With context and common sense, those administrators are able to make a sensible decision, and so reduce the gaming of the catch-all wording of these remedies. AGK [•] 23:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, this removes an opportunity to game the system. Currently, an enforcement action would be taken on request if these two users comment in any thread about any editor who has at any time edited a page about race and intelligence. AGK [•] 21:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, Kirill: Greater discretion for AE administrators is a reasonable objective. Handing them carte blanche and the obligation to grant frivolous requests for enforcement in cases where "sanctioned user X posted in ANI thread about user Y when Y made an edit to R&I article Z some two years ago". Bearing in mind the frequency of wikilawyering at AE (of which I'm sure you're aware), Worked in the topic is unduly sweeping. I do not believe you are not improving the ability of AE sysops to act in the way you think you are. AGK [•] 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per AGK. PhilKnight (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be helpful, although I don't think it is sufficient to resolve the issue, and anticipate that another motion will also be made. I am not convinced by Jclemens' comment regarding Mathsci. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Not convinced that this is the right direction to go, given Mathsci's gaming of the one-way interaction ban. If we upgraded the existing interaction bans to two-way, I would probably support. Jclemens (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this will have no effect on the application of sanctions in this area. Risker (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced this is helpful. Given the convoluted history of the topic, and the collusion/shenanigans that have gone on for so long in the background, the AE admins need broad discretion to act if they decide sanctions are reasonable and appropriate. Roger Davies ^talk 08:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roger. Kirill ^[talk] 11:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, changes nothing, but creates a hole for wikilawyering. Courcelles 20:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by arbitrators

Motion (on restoring reverted edits)

For the purpose of this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Site-banned former users are not welcome on Wikipedia. For all practical purposes, they are prohibited from making any edits to any page on Wikipedia; per longstanding consensus, their edits may be reverted on sight by any editor. Editors are hereby warned that restoring the reverted edits of site-banned former users is not only strongly discouraged but may also in and of itself be disruptive and/or constitute harassment.

Support

This summarises the various policy brightlines. Roger Davies ^talk 19:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 19:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third preference. Would prefer 'editors are advised' to 'editors are hereby warned' or alternatively, naming the editor(s) we are actually warning. In other words, the current motion could be interpreted as warning all editors, which is somewhat inappropriate. However, this is merely a stylistic comment, and otherwise I can support this motion. PhilKnight (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the editors who have commented on this motion. On reflection, I think "restoring the reverted edits" should be "restoring the reverted talk page edits" as in circumstances where a banned editor notices vandalism or a typo, it is perfectly acceptable to restore the fix after someone has reverted back all of the banned user's edits. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
as worded, it does allow for constructive article editing....the use of "may" is important here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Not in this form. As SilkTork points out below, this would be usurping the community's authority. Right now, any user is free to proxy edit for any banned editor... by accepting total and complete responsibility for that content. This would fundamentally change that content policy by ArbCom fiat: not within our remit. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Jclemens and my comment below. I don't think it is wise to proxy for a banned user, but it is allowed. Courcelles 23:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't support this. I don't even see the decision not to revert a banned user as equivalent to proxying, if the edit is appropriate and improves the project. Indeed, I've seen serious BLP violations and NPOV violations (let alone minor fixes like typos) reinstated into articles because people were reverting banned users, and users who make the same corrections as banned users previously have done have been threatened with blocking because they're "proxying for a banned user". This doesn't even correspond with the policy. Risker (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This does not align with site policy, whether we like it or not. AGK [•] 12:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer the other motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

The Banning policy says: "Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content." Is the wording of the motion in line with that, or is it taking a firmer approach? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm having the same issues with this as SilkTork, it is fairly well established that a user CAN reinstate a banned user's edit as long as they are willing to face the music regarding that edit being 100% acceptable. This seems to take away that option. Courcelles 19:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the comments, and the opposes, with considerable interest. Which is not to say that I agree with all of them of course. At least this motion has now clarified some of the issues as they are perceived by my fellow arbitrators, which were not previously articulated in the discussions on this page. A motion which reads more as a specific reaction to this amendment rather than a general statement is probably the way forward. The core issue in this amendment is that topic-banned editors have reinstated, for out-of-process reasons, talk page posts made by a serially-socking banned user who is engaged in a longterm campaign of overt (and covert) harassment. Unless I am beaten to it, I shall offer an alternative within the next few days. Roger Davies ^talk 04:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's needed is something waaaaay more specific.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (on restoring reverted edits 2)

Wikipedia policy generally is that the edits of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor AND that the content of edits made by a banned user may, if appropriate, be reinserted by an editor in good standing who then takes full responsibility for that content. Given the continued disruption in this area from banned editors continuing to edit through sockpuppets and proxy editors, the sanction of all parties currently topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence is extended to cover restoring either the edits or the content of edits made by users banned or topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence. In addition, any topic ban imposed in the future as part of discretionary sanctions will be deemed to include a ban on restoring either the edits or the content of edits made by users banned or topic banned in respect of Race and Intelligence.

For the purpose of this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support

More specific --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second preference. Would prefer "will be deemed to include" to "will include". PhilKnight (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Made second choice 23:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this proposal encapsulates what is needed here. The proviso to the banning policy, under which editors may restore edits by banned users if they take full responsibility for their content, has a purpose (about which I have written extensively elsewhere), but it is controversial and can be subject to misuse under the best of circumstances. The proviso is not intended, and should not be misused, as a means of ongoing on-wiki communication with the banned editor (except for legitimate unblock requests), nor where there is evidence that the banned editor is actively continuing his or her pattern of harassing and disruptive conduct that led to the ban. In this instance, it has become clear that one or two of the persistently disruptive editors who have been site-banned for disruptive editing on Race and intelligence, have posted via obvious sockpuppet accounts to the talkpages of editors who have participated in this amendment discussion. These users have then reinstated and responded to these postings by the banned user, after the postings were legitimately removed by another editor. This practice would be questionable under any circumstances and became disruptive under all the circumstances of this case. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to instruct them to stop, which is what this motion does. However, I would favor a broader motion applying this instruction to all the editors who have participated in this clarification discussion, not only those who are topic-banned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was probably unnecessary to make any motions, and we should just have said, as individuals, that administrators are authorized to make such sanctions as they see fit in this topic area — which is really what we mean. Frankly, I doubt there's anyone on this committee who would object to the indefinite topic–banning of any editor, whether or not they have a past history in this area, who reinstates harassing, outing, personal attacks or (for that matter) any other talk page edits by banned users or their socks, or treating those reinstated edits as though they had come from the editor who reinstates them, within this topic area, wherever it is discussed, including user talk pages. This is already within the remit of administrators, but I don't know that we really need motions to do it. I have no particular objection to this version of the motion, which is specific to this case, and I would prefer a broader ruling such as that suggested by Newyorkbrad. But just so that the administrators who have willingly invested the time and energy to work at arbitration enforcement know that the Committee supports their efforts to try to bring some order to difficult areas, I will support this motion. Please do not hesitate to issue sanctions in this matter. Risker (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get what Roger was trying to make Motion 1 do, but I think this is an improvement. AGK [•] 10:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This motion is now my second choice. AGK [•] 09:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing. Kirill ^[talk] 01:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Per below. This accomplishes nothing. Courcelles 20:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Comments

I'll post something later, Roger Davies ^talk 06:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like this one a lot better, but hasn't the disputed activity to date largely preceeded SPIs on the relevant sock accounts? "obvious sock is obvious" is a good enough principle to justify blocking the sock... but I worry about it being used to punish other editors for interacting with an account later ascertained to be a sock. Jclemens (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They can argue with the sock, discuss with it, cuss it out. Just not put its edits back if they are specifically reverted as being the edits of a banned editor. That is the extent to this extension of the topic ban (or at least that's what is intended. If that isn't clear enough then please revise text). Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. Reverting any edit with the edit summary "sock of a banned user"--as can be done by anyone--does not carry any weight until and unless an SPI actually finds that a violation has taken place. There should be no presumption--to the point of sanctioning editors who revert such edits--that the identification of a sock is correct. That would be "guilty as accused until proven innocent", squared. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil - no objections if you change it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, if we're going to extend the topic bans already implemented, I would find it cleaner if we just said "no race and intelligence related edits of any sort, period." A topic banned editor should be blocked for making any restoration of intentionally removed content, so this motion strikes me as meaningless; it would already be a violation. (Is there a typo in this motion or something? Because I'm reading it as "if you're R&I topic banned, you can't revert back in a banned user's edits" which is how things already are.) Courcelles 04:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query. If that's how things are now, why are we not just sanctioning the editors concerned? Why are we having this discussion? Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the editors we are having trouble with already topic banned from race and intelligence? A topic banned editor should not be making any edits, yet your motion denies them a specific kind of edit. If we have editors who are topic banned making such reverts, then we have a deeper problem than this motion will solve. Perhaps you meant this motion to apply to everyone, instead of those who are already prohibited from making any edit sin the topic anyhow? Courcelles 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I look at it, SightWatcher and Trevelyan are "indefinitely banned from editing and/or discussing the topic of Race and Intelligence on any page of Wikipedia, 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." I would agree with you that restoring Echigo Mole's edits falls under this - I presumed there was some reason Roger was trying to draft a prohibition on restoring the edits of a banned user, which was why I offered a rewrite. I think this Rump has sat long enough - we appear to have forgotten our original objectives when finding ourselves up to the arse in alligators. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- What about something much simpler? "Edits made by accounts or IP's blocked as socks of Echigo Mole may not be restored under any circumstances by any editor who was named as a party in the R&I case, the R&I review, or has been previously sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions of that case"? That would require a lot of notifications, (and our CU's to mention EM when they are blocking) but it would solve the problem. Courcelles 20:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, works perfectly fine to enforce behavior after the SPI has been done and verified the sock... Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The SPI route does seem to be cracking a hazelnut with a procedural sledgehammer. The basic issue here is of ferocious complexity, not helped by conflating it with proxying and so forth, which simply made matters much worse. I'm sorry not to have been more responsive earlier, but I've been travelling in Southern Germany and Eastern France all week, and have been experiencing major connection difficulties. I agree with Brad that the restriction probably needs to be extended to all editors who have participated in R&I things though that is likely to meet resistance and further wiki-lawyering. Roger Davies ^talk 22:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Motion (on restoring reverted edits 3)

Banned editors and their sockpuppets have long caused disruption to both the Race and Intelligence topic ("R&I") and editors associated with it.

The Committee notes that the applicable policy provides:

banned editors are prohibited from editing pages on Wikipedia;
the posts of a banned user may be reverted on sight by any editor;
any editor who restores the reverted post/s of a banned editor accepts full responsibility for the restored material.

To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor:

which was posted within the R&I topic or
which relates, directly or indirectly, to either the R&I topic or to any editor associated with the R&I topic.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised to enforce the foregoing in respect of any editor restoring any reverted post.

Sanctions may not be imposed for edits made prior to the passing of this motion but warnings may be given for prior activity and should be logged appropriately.

For the purpose of this motion, there are 14 active non-recused arbitrators, so 8 votes are a majority.

Support

I think this ties up all the loose ends and is probably a more straighforward/less wikilawyerable way of dealing with this. It provides a red flag to those seeking to revert; and a green flag to administrators. I think it answers Courcelles' and Newyorkbrad's concerns too. If adopted, it needs to go on the R&I case page, probably with a heading "Amendment remedies". Roger Davies ^talk 07:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. AGK [•] 09:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First preference. Obviously common sense will have to be applied regarding fixing typos and vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one I can support. Courcelles 23:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill ^[talk] 04:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With common sense applied by everyone to all aspects of the matter, including the one raised by Jclemens below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

I would prefer to see this copyedited to indicate that "banned" in this motion means both site and topic banned editors, if that is indeed what Roger means. Courcelles 23:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't support it, as it doesn't specify any method or process for ascertaining that edits are, in fact, those of a banned editor: If it's requiring a closed SPI, it's cumbersome, and if it's assuming guilt, it's eliminating due process and appropriate notifications--of the two, the latter is the more concerning issue to me, since editors should not be sanctioned absent appropriate warning. Still, it does look better than either of the previous two. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This should obviously be a new sanction log, requiring at a minimum a new warning under discretionary sanctions before someone gets blocked. (though in the future that could be built into the standard RI warning, people already warned will need to be warned again under this motion) Courcelles 13:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds sensible. I think the particular editors in question in this specific case have received more than adequate warnings, but I just don't want to see the next editor who comes along and reverts an aggressive rollback of a talk page edit by an IP address blocked on the presumption that it's an inappropriate edit. Without being too WP:BEANSy about it, I could see how an unrelated user could troll one particular user who's known for his aggressive reversion of edits he presumes are from banned editors--e.g., by imitating the content and style preferred by that banned editor--then make an innocuous edit to another user's talk page, and get the two editors into an edit war on the second user's talk page. While it may seem like I'm being overly pedantic here, it's very important to not set up sanctions that can be gamed by other editors who are up to no good. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]