Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Race and intelligence 2		22 October 2012	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Race and intelligence 2

Initiated by Cla68 (talk) at 22:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Mathsci
• The Devil's Advocate
• Zeromus1
• Collect
• MastCell
• Timotheus Canens
• Future Perfect at Sunrise
• NuclearWarfare
• Nyttend
• Wee Curry Monster

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence
• Administrators Noticeboard request - 3 June 2012
• Arbitration Enforcement (AE) request - 6 June 2012
• AE request - 12 June 2012
• AE request 22 September 2012
• AE request - 22 October 2012

Statement by Cla68

In the May 2012 modification to the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence, Mathsci was admonished for BATTLEFIELD conduct. The conduct has continued and has caused unnecessary disruption. Unfortunately, Mathsci's conduct has been enabled by the actions of a few administrators.

Evidence in the case was presented that Mathsci had been wikihounded by a now banned editor. Since the case closed, administrators, notably Future Perfect at Sunrise, have done a good job at reverting edits made by the banned editor and blocking the IPs used for the edits. Nevertheless, Mathsci has repeatedly reinserted himself into the conflict with the banned editor, including reverting comments on editor's talk pages, then requesting administrator intervention when editors disagree with his actions. In the AN thread linked above, he complained about an administrator (Nyttend) who objected to his conduct. Although Mathsci has stated he will no longer edit the Race and Intelligence articles, he still takes an active role in policing them and pursuing involved editors with which he does not agree. In the AE requests linked to above, evidence was presented that he has wikihounded The Devil's Advocate. Collect was formally warned when he had done nothing more than criticize Mathsci's actions, and the warning was logged in the case sanctions section.

The most recent AE request was closed yesterday. Mathsci opened the request after interjecting himself in an unrelated AE request in which The Devil's Advocate was involved. Evidence was then presented in that request that Mathsci was mischaracterizing editor's actions and using their disagreement with his interpretation of an ArbCom action in order to push for their sanction. During the request, Mathsci selectively reverted a suspected banned edit from my user talk page. When I complained, he again used the tactic of saying that I was violating an ArbCom mandate and pushed for my sanction (a debate between I and Mathsci in my evidence section was hatted by Future Perfect at Sunrise). Once I realized that he was using a baiting/bear poking tactic with me that he had used before, as the above threads illustrate, I provided evidence of it (all the links/diffs are in that evidence). The evidence includes a link to an AE action that Mathsci attempted to initiate against me for disagreeing with him, which Future Perfect at Sunrise speedily closed. Five minutes later, Wee Curry Monster hatted my evidence section, then, about an hour later, Timotheus Canens imposed one-way interaction bans on me, The Devil's Advocate, and Zeromus1 and closed the request without allowing time for the other admins who had commented to comment on the new evidence. In a similar example, one of the AE requests linked above, MastCell decided to block an editor before that editor had even responded to the AE request. As far as I know, I have never edited the Race and Intelligence topic area.

Mathsci states repeatedly that the stress from the Race and Intelligence topic area has caused him heart trouble and other kinds of hardship. Yet, he repeatedly involves himself in pushing for administrative action against involved editors, actions against banned editors, and aggressively pursuing administrative action against editors who have concerns with his behavior. If he really does have a heart problem, I believe some intervention may be necessary before he harms himself, which is of course more serious than the disruption he is causing with his continued, BATTLEFIELD conduct. For example, since the imposing of the interaction ban yesterday, when The Devil's Advocate asked the sanctioning administrator for clarification on the admin's talk page Mathsci responded with a confrontational comment. Mathsci responded to this case request by filing another AE request.

If the case is accepted, I believe the evidence will show that:

• Mathsci is treating the issue with the banned user as an ongoing battle that he must win through his own, constant, personal intervention
• Mathsci wikihounds, hectors, baits, and pokes editors who disagree with or criticize his actions
• Two or three admins have been effectively rubber-stamping his AE requests, (such as MastCell approving that block before the target even had a chance to defend himself) and intimidating or unfairly sanctioning editors who get in the way, such as the formal warning to Collect, almost blocking The Devil's Advocate based on shaky evidence, then imposing one-way interaction bans instead of mutual interaction bans

Responses to Arbitrators

• SirFozzie, as far as I know, I haven't filed any other ArbCom requests or AE actions against Mathsci. If I have, someone please point it out to me. I believe most, if not almost all, of the AN and AE requests linked to above were initiated by Mathsci. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I understand what you mean. The problem is, in the most recent AE request, Mathsci had almost convinced the participating admins into blocking The Devil's Advocate (TDA), even though the evidence Mathsci presented had serious problems when examined in any great detail. Somebody has to speak up when someone is about to be unfairly trampled. And yes, I do believe the evidence shows that that was the case (see TDA's statement below, which I think is fairly clear). Is it always fair or accurate to label the people who speak up as holding grudges? Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by User:Collect

As noted, I have essentially zero connection to the R&I controversy, and found the "warning" issued to me to be incomprehensible. I would leave it to individual editors to try explaining precisely why it was made at the time, though I suspect Cla68 may, indeed, be correct in his assessment thereof. If any motions are made, I would appreciate one removing my name from the "sanctions" page at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Wee Curry Monster

I have no idea why I have been named as a party, my only role in the matter was to hat a thread with a suggestion that Cla68 drop the stick. He had been warned about his comments and as a neutral 3rd party who unfortunately happened by, it seemed obvious to this bystander he seemed to have a fixation on Mathsci, for what seemed a bizarre reason to me (ie that Mathsci following policy was somehow involved in a vendetta against a banned user). My only motivation in doing so was to try and stop an editor who I previously thought of as a good content creator, self-destructing and being sanctioned. Frankly I wish I hadn't bothered, I would urge arbcom not to take this on as a waste of everyone's time. Cla68 received more than fair warning where his conduct was headed and I am unsurprised it ended as it did. A good close in my book, lets not waste any more editing time on this drama fest. Remember the encyclopedia we're supposed to be building people? Wee Curry Monster talk 00:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Addendum

An addendum resulting from a conversation with Cla68 yesterday evening. See [1], where I invited anyone who thought my intervention inappropirate, including Cla68, to simply revert me. I believe I made it plain why I hatted the conversation, that I considered Cla68 had clearly lost perspective and appeared to have a fixation on Mathsci. From a personal perspective, it saddens me to see an editor who I considered in good standing at WP:MILHIST for his work on WWII self-destructing like this. Please could someone hit him with a clue stick and shut down this drama fest quickly. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nyttend

Ditto the first half of WCM's first sentence; I'm quite confused. I've never even read a summary of the original race and intelligence case; I assume that it's something about an alleged correlation between people of some races being more or less intelligent than people of other races, and if that be the issue, I've never edited anything close to that. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.

Why, oh why can't people just shut the f... up?

This filing is a breach of the ban just imposed, and I hope that arbitrators will have the sense to decline it speedily. There is a difference between an appeal (which of course Cla is entitled to file, on AE or here), and this kind of request for a full case. An appeal would be narrowly restricted in scope to discussing the justification of this particular sanction, and would involve only Cla and the administrator(s) who imposed it. But what he's asking for instead is a whole big case with everybody involved, with the scope of discussing not Cla's sanction, but Mathsci and everybody else. Mathsci and everybody else hacking on each other again and again is precisely what these sanctions were meant to stop, so no, "Cla must not discuss Mathsci" means precisely what it says, and it does include Arbcom pages.

For the same reason, I hope Arbcom members will leave no doubt about it that this request is also not a free pass for the other sanctioned editors to misuse it for resuming their behaviour here. Please close this down quickly. Every day this whole ugliness is allowed to keep boiling is a day too much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

For a variety of reasons I don't really want to participate here, it gives me a headache just thinking about having to deal with even more of this drama, but I think we should all understand how this recent situation went down. After weeks of me having no contact with Mathsci, not even so much as speaking his name as I recall, he suddenly decided to accuse me of tag-teaming and meatpuppetry without a shred of evidence at an AE case where I was not involved, an AE case that concerned an article I have not even edited. I responded to ask him not to make such serious claims without evidence and he reacts to that civil request by bringing up all the garbage from the request for amendment that ended weeks before his comment and making a bunch of other bizarre accusations. At one point he accuses me of putting forward a "grotesque conspiracy theory" that he was lying about his heart condition as part of some "morbid game" on my part, despite me plainly acknowledging his health problems in the comment directly preceding that one. In fact, what I stated was that he keeps pursuing me at multiple noticeboards and I did not in any way try to cast doubt on the seriousness of his health issues.

After his attempt to hijack that case didn't pan out, Mathsci initiated an AE case against me and Zeromus claiming it was enforcing the new remedy on restoring edits from banned editors, even though neither of us had done such a thing. One of the two diffs concerning me was me clarifying on Zeromus' talk page that the new restriction does not prohibit interactions with any editors, including Trev, after Mathsci claimed it did. Mathsci claimed this was me encouraging people to talk to Trev. The other diff he cited was a comment from several weeks ago at the request for amendment where I stated that Trev had requested via e-mail that I file an RfC/U against Mathsci, but that before Trev even made this suggestion I had already considered such action may prove necessary at some point should Mathsci's conduct continue unabated. Mathsci claimed that diff showed me threatening to file an RfC/U on Trev's behalf. Neither of these explanations were accurate descriptions of my comments. Beyond that, Mathsci left additional comments making all sorts of accusations about harassment and proxy-editing that he made no effort to substantiate with actual evidence.

This was just forum-shopping after Mathsci's numerous attempts to get me sanctioned during the request for amendment didn't pan out, plain and simple. In the AE case I provided the very same diff above demonstrating that Mathsci was the one who started this recent mess by trying to hijack another AE case to go after me on completely frivolous claims of tag-teaming and meat-puppetry. For any admin to take Mathsci's vexatious, evidence-starved request for enforcement seriously was a major lapse in judgment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's clear things up a bit here. The only reason I mentioned Trev's request for an RfC/U was to be clear that if I should pursue such a measure in the future it would be because I felt it was necessary because of the conduct I had witnessed and not because anyone else requested it. I told Zeromus that the recently-passed restriction did not prohibit interactions with banned editors or Trev because other editors were seemingly trying to mislead Zeromus into thinking that interacting with Trev or banned editors was a violation of the restriction and thus could lead to sanctions. That is essentially the whole basis for the indefinite one-way interaction ban.

While I don't expect or want an arbitration case on this matter, would the Arbs consider putting forward a motion on this interaction ban, either to lift it or make it mutual? Honestly, I think any sort of interaction ban was pointless as I am more than happy to ignore Mathsci as I did in the weeks preceding this latest flare-up and in the numerous instances before that where he showed up at unrelated noticeboards to go after me. Hell, I ignored the vast majority of his comments about me on the request for amendment as well. Still, if Mathsci was just prevented from interacting with me as well I would be willing to accept the sanction, though I would prefer if it had a time limit rather than being indefinite.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Zeromus1

I know I'm expected to provide a statement here, but I won't be able to if I'm not allowed to comment on the case's other parties. I assume interaction bans have an exception for commenting on arbitration requests in which I'm a party, especially as The Devil's Advocate already has done so.

I think that Arbcom should accept this case, but it should be called something other than Race and Intelligence II. A lot of the editors involved, such as Nyttend and Collect, appear to have not edited articles in the R&I topic area. The focus of Cla68's complaint is Mathsci's apparent battleground attitude, and the way admins seem to enable it by sanctioning any editor who Mathsci reports without carefully examining the situation. If this is the case, then it can't be resolved at AE, because the way AE requests are handled is part of the problem. But the problem also applies to more topic areas than R&I, so if Arbcom accepts the case its name should reflect that.

In this amendment request made by The Devil's Advocate, nine editors commented that this was something which Arbcom should address, most of them editors who have not participated in R&I articles as far as I know. But Arbcom chose to not address it, and instead addressed the (mostly) separate issue of Echigo Mole's socking. In that amendment request, some people also commented that if Arbcom did not address the concerns of the community, this conflict would likely continue to expand and come back to Arbcom again and again. That appears to be what's happening now. Considering the multiple arbitration requests there have been about this conflict already, I think Arbcom should carefully consider, can the community really be expected to resolve it without arbitration? And if so, where? (Certainly not at AE.) Up to this point, the effect of Arbcom's reluctance to take on this conflict seems to be that there's a new arbitration request about it from a new group of editors every few months, and I see no reason to assume that would be different in the future. Zeromus1 (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

So, what is this dispute about? Count Iblis (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Cla68, so if I understand it correctly, your involvement in the topic area as far as editing articles is concerned, is minimal; the dispute is primarily about dealing with banned editors like when they post on user talk pages as happened in the recent incident? Count Iblis (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Question by TheRedPenOfDoom

I thought the filer was indefinitely prohibited from commenting on, or interacting with, User:Mathsci, broadly construed, anywhere on Wikipedia. You may appeal this ban at AE or to the arbitration committee at WP:A/R/CA. This does not appear to be either of the approved forums for addressing the filers concerns.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

If this is the standard procedure, then fine. By the wording of the notice, however, the filing here seems to be jumping to one of the most vexatious methods of interacting in an attempt to bypass the AE sanctions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment from The ed17

@RedPen, this seems to be an appropriate venue for the filer, despite the nominal restriction. Arbitration enforcement was tried (and failed, in the filer's view), and this isn't a request for clarification or an amendment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz

Red Pen seems to point out a technical flaw in the filing that I'll defer to Arbcom on depending on how rigidly they want to interpret the rules. That said, I think the Committee should just make it so IBans done under this case are mutual, not unilateral and that only the individual upon whom the ban is personally placed may appeal the ban. This would prevent professional advocates or opposing parties from gaming the system to negate the effect of the decision. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

Rather than finding matters than might need arbitration, those interested in Mathsci should empirically determine whether any perceived battlefield conduct would be apparent if Mathsci were left alone. Mathsci only commented on Cla68 because the latter chose to make a statement at AE (diff—a complaint that Mathsci had removed a message from a banned user at Cla68's talk). That statement followed a comment at the same AE made by Cla68 two days earlier with the implication that Mathsci's behavior should be examined (diff). It may be the case that a different strategy for dealing with socks should be employed, but blaming the victim is never helpful, and WP:DENY is the best strategy. Particularly given the history, why would anyone consider that the removal of "a harmless remark" warranted a statement at AE? Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci

Short version: A frivolous and probably malicious request. Cla68 is angry that he has been banned from discussing me. He believes that the community banned wikihounder Echigo mole is the object of battleground conduct from me, because I report his socks at SPI and revert his disruptive posts per WP:BAN. Although that is wikipedia policy, because it is me and because Cla68 dislikes me, it must also have strong elements of BATTLEGROUND behaviour which warrants some kind of site-ban, perhaps a double or triple site-ban. Instead of appealing the ban at WP:AE, which would be the normal course of action here, Cla68 decided to stage a stunt by spreading the disruption that led to his ban to an even more visible project page. Cla68 has violated WP:CANVASS by including parties that were not involved in the WP:AE thread that led to this stunt.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A frivolous, malicious and disruptive request. Cla68's recent poor conduct at WP:AE resulted in a one-way interaction ban being imposed on Cla68 [2]: he is not permitted to discuss me anywhere on wikipedia. He has done so here by making a request unambiguously centred on me. He has therefore been reported at WP:AE for a gross violation of that ban. I have requested a block of one month or possibly longer because of the scale of the violation. The request itself would seem to have nothing at all to do with the editing of articles covered by WP:ARBR&I and also very little to do with connected problems in project space (sockpuppetry, proxy editing, etc). I am not sanctioned, so there are no sanctions that have been violated. If Cla68 objected to his interaction ban, the natural next step would have been a formal appeal at WP:AE. That is what most users do. He has not done so. There does not seem to be an underlying dispute, just aggressive bullying to settle some old score on the part of Cla68. This particular grudge has been around for some while.[3] Cla68 placed a quote from me on his "threat charges" page [now deleted]. That undercuts his disingenuous claim not to know me or to have interacted with me. We have particpated in several arbcom cases together (eg MBLPs). My impression of Cla68 from our first contacts on Wikipedia Review in 2009, when he asked me pointed questions about William M. Connolley, is that at some stage he developed a dislike towards me. His recent actions confirm that: they have been uncollegial, designed to maximise stress (here he has stage managed a pile-on by his choice of parties), drama-escalating and unduly aggressive. His attempts to describe the wikihounding by Echigo mole as some kind of "battle", with some form of parity between me and a community banned user, show that Cla68 is deliberately choosing a perverse misreading of WP:BAN as well as the spirit behind the recently passed motion. Cla68's disruption can be dealt with directly at WP:AE. If The Devil's Advocate or Zeromus1 (an SPA with barely 200 edits) comments here, they will also be reported at WP:AE, since they are also under one-way interaction bans. Much of the commentary that Cla68 has provided seems incorrect. I commented about editing in an WP:ARBR&I request on tag teaming in one article (not involving any parties mentioned here); I added a parenthetic comment about possible tag teaming at Talk:Race and intelligence. The ipsock 80.237.226.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who posted on his page had already been blocked as a tor-node by Materialscientist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Two SPI reports on Echigo mole (one on Oct 16 and one on Oct 20) had already been started. The post was reverted with a clear explanation in the edit summary.[4] Echigo mole was using 2 tor-nodes, one open proxy and two sockpuppet accounts at that stage. Cla68 was informed of the motion, was informed multiple times by Future Perfect at Sunrise that I was perfectly entitled to remove the notification by this banned user, since the context of the parallel socking made it clear it was trolling by Echigo mole. Echigo mole's disruption was to advise users likely to be ill-disposed towards me of a venue where they could criticize me (that is his style). Cla68 chose to disregard the advice of Future Perfect at Sunrise and when advised to drop matters, twice added inflammatory material at WP:AE. The first time it was reverted by Future Perfect at Sunrise and the second time it was hatted by Wee Curry Monster. Then Cla68 lodged a complaint at User talk:Timotheus Canens.[5] The Devil's Advocate also left a message, requesting sanctions against me, but without justification. I informed both of them that if they objected to the ban the standard method of appeal was at WP:AE. I advised The Devil's Advocate that his request was a violation of his ban, that I was not goig to report it, but that he should be more careful in the future. Cla68 did not wait for a response from TCannes, but simply cut to this request. There was no dispute, only Cla68's perverse misreading of WP:BAN, even after being gently advised by FPaS. (He had also requested that I be blocked at WP:AE for posting in what he regarded as the wrong section.) Since this is related to the WP:AE request that resulted in Cla68's interaction ban, he should really have contacted all those involved in that thread. Despite what Sir Fozzie is suggesting, no administrators commenting there criticized my {{WP:AE]] request (The Devil's Advocate agitating behind the scenes for an RfC/U because TrevelyanL85A2 had asked him to do so by email; Zeromus1's request for the same thing after a trolling post from an Echigo mole sock). Making some general statement about interaction bans without checking the facts is not a good idea. I have not suggested RfC/U's on Cla68, The Devil's Advocate and Zeromus1. I have suggested that all three are editing disruptively, but that does not warrant any kind of sanction on me. If Cla68 shouts out that removing a tor-node post by an identified banned user from his talk page is "BATTLEFIELD" conduct and that being the object of a malicious wikihounder is also an example of "BATTLEFIELD" conduct on my part, that would seem to be an example of one-sided disruption, with all good faith suspended. I am powerless to do anything about that kind of conduct which is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Cla68 chose to express himself in that obnoxious way and has been sanctioned as a result. In this case his conduct has been appalling. But is this not just a resurfacing of the conduct that led to sanctions under WP:ARBCC? Cla68 has previously received several warnings from administrators, but has not heeded those warnings. Placing himself above arbitrators and administrators, he has escalated matters in a disproportionate way, simply because I removed a notification left by an indefinitely blocked tor-node ipsock of Echigo mole. I understand that Cla68 has been itching to stage a stunt like this. He already made a request to make a submission during the review,[6] which was denied by Roger Davies. His unduly aggressive actions towards me seem to come from old grudge going to William M. Connolley and Will Beback. It's quite hard to know, because the current sequence of actions seem completely irrational. He is aware that I am recovering from triple bypass surgey performed within the last few days. He seems to be taking advantage of that. Looking at the background to this, I have one small suggestion to make here connected with the amendment I requested immediately after the close of the review. Please could the arbitration committee reformulate its finding on me concerning battlefield conduct and borderline personal attacks? The previous amendment that I requested asked for the precise context of that to be made clear by a quliafying phrase ("towards those who in his perception were acting as proxy editors", etc). [The previous qualifying phrase referred to "ideological differences" which was inaccurate and was removed.] Cla68 has chosen to apply the phrase "battle" to the interactions with the community banned wikihounder Echigo mole, whose activities and their consequences were behind the recently passed motion. He suggested parity between Echigo mole and a user in good standing (me). The qualifying phrases requested in the original amendment could be added now and that would prevent time-wasting requests like this. That phrasing, through no fault of Roger Davies, has unfortunately resulted in too many problems so far. It has been used out of context by Collect (who was given an official warning logged at WP:ARBR&I), by The Devil's Advocate and by Cla68 (both subject to ineraction bans), as well as by others.

@Sir Fozzie: TrevelyanL85A2 crossed the line multiple times in the last amendment request and the arbitration committee did not take charge of matters. Shortly after the third motion was passed, TrevelyanL85A2 made further violations of his ban elsehwere and was indefinitely blocked after a report at WP:AE. As far as I am aware this RfArb is not a request for an interaction ban to be reviewed, nor a case cocerning editors involved in WP:ARBR&I. It looks like a grudge-fest solely concerning Mathsci, a cynical escalation by a user who knows I am in ill health and wants to cause me even more distress for a nonexistent dispute and non-existent incident. That's how it looks from here. If it were an appeal, then all the participants in the AE thread should have been informed or listed as parties. Cla68 is just playing silly little games on wikipedia.

The Devil's Advocate has also broken his interaction ban. TDA was banned for discussing me because, following a post-ban email from TrevelyanL85A2 suggesting as RfC/U should be started about me, TDA continued to (a) say it was OK to confer with TrevelyanL85A2 despite the AE-ban and (b) he intended to start an RfC/U at some point. Zeromus1, an SPA with barely 200 edits to his name, received a trolling email from a sockpuppet of Echigo mole also suggesting that the DeviantArt campaign to "write me out of the equation" should be continued with an RfC/U. TDA and Zeromus1 have discussed at length whether they should proceed on the advice of Trevelyan and Echigo. They were both banned from discussing me and TDA almost blocked for having these disruptive discussions. Instead of not interacting with the pair of banned users, Zeromus1 and TDA were acting as their enablers. I presume that is why administrators vetoed those discussions or any future actions. Zeromus1's account has many aspects similar to the DeviantArt editors: his first edit was already a problem. [7]

The Devil's Advocate continues to wikilawyer, dressing up his disruptive proxy-editing for TrevelyanL85A2 as if it was some kind of human rights issue. He has no right to act as a proxy editor for Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and their friends, particularly if that involves the campaign that was one of the contributing factors to their site-ban. Here is what he wrote:[8] "Not saying that certain editors should not be prohibited from editing, but that no one should demand that people not talk to another human being off-wiki solely because of some sanction against that person on here." The Devil's Advocate only intention in having such off-wiki discussions was to create disruption on-wiki. He has continued to do that for almost four months.

Zeromus1 has now commented and violated his ban on discussing me. In his comments he has actually gone further than before discussing events that predate his own editing. His editing patterns are odd, but the views he expresses and particulalry the fact he mentions on the User talk:The Devil's Advocate the unjustices done to SightWatcher, Ludwigs2 and Miradre, suggest that this is either a sockpuppet from the DeviantArt group or a close associate. The language on project pages is indistinguishable from that of TrevelyanL85A2. That he is referring to the requests for amendments of The Devil's Advocate both of which were turned down is disturbing. A motion was passed. He ingnored that motion in enabling the ipsock of Echigo mole. Given that this account is an SPA and yet, after less than 200 edits, is at home on project pages, the interaction ban is clearly warranted. A look at their conduct on Talk:Race and intelligence shows that they are breaking almost every principle set out by arbcom in 2010. The discussion of events that predated their appearance on wikipedia is bizarre. My view is that this must be more disturbance from the DeviantArt group. There is an Occamesque reference to a nonexistent "dispute", without there being any dispute at all. That aspect of the campaign was continued by Ferahgo. Then SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 grumbled about something that wasn't quite right but which they couldn't quite put their finger on. However, TrevelyanL85A2 in the end, having forgotten his topic ban, was unable to conceal the fact that his role on wikipedia was that of an attack-only account, with me as the victim. Zeromus1's project space edits seem to have too many features in common with the DeviantArt editors. Zeromus has no experience concerning WP:AE. Many people report case on WP:AE and Zeromus1's claim that WP:AE isnot working is exactly what I would expect Occam, Ferhago and their friends to say. Perhaps Zeromus1 can explain which AE cases he is thinking of and why he has any familarity with those cases. Why did he mention Ludwigs2 on TDA's talk page? Ludwigs2 was site-banned for his interactions with a host of different editors and administrators. I supplied diffs of some of his perosnal attacks related to images during an arbcom case. Is Zeromus1 referring to me because he was told to do so? [9][10][11]

According to the motion, users can now be sanctioned for enabling or attempting to profit from Echigo mole's trolling and mischief-making. However, as has happened here, part of their sanction can include not following Echigo mole's suggestions, such as RfC/Us. If that sanction is administered through a one-way interaction ban preventing them from filing such an RfC/U, there is no point in simultaneously imposing sanctions on me just because of their enabling of the wikihounder. Otherwise whenever somebody makes such an attempt, I will tot up more arbcom sanctions because of the antics of the wikihounder. That would essentially reward the wikihounder and would be unreasonable for me. On the other hand TrevelyanL85A2 was also prohibited from filing such requests. His extended topic ban prohibiting comments on me was one-way and did not involve a mutual interaction ban. At no stage have I sought to file RfC/U's on other users like The Devil's Advocate, Zeromus1, TrevelyanL85A2, SightWatcher, Cla68, etc. I wouldn't see the point. If, however, they attempt to wreck or challenge the arbitration committee's solution for maintaining stabilty and clamping down on the DeviantArt campaign, then WP:AE reports are to be expected. Without a flicker of self-doubt, The Devil's Advocate has continued to act as an advocate and apologist for TrevelyanL85A2: as it turned out TrevelyanL85A2 was just a disruptive user, pursuing only the DeviantArt campaign, which led to him being AE-banned. At no stage has The Devil's Advocate acknowledged the underlying problems. taking instead the side of the DeviantArt group of editors. That is a disruptive stance and The Devil's Advocate has given no reasonable explanation of why he has continued to favour banned users.

Comment by Tijfo098

The TLDR version: Cla68 started to attack Mathsci [12] [13] in an AE thread in which Cla68 showed up after being canvassed from a tor exit node [14]. FPaS tried to hat the conversation [15], but since Cla68 would not drop the WP:STICK [16] [17], he was banned by T. Canens from commenting on Mathsci [18]. The last thing we need are enablers for Echigo Mole's trolling; he was simultaneously active at that WP:AE, probably with two accounts and several IPs. There is a SPI ongoing. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: I think Mathsci should take the time to file a WP:LTA report on Echigo Mole, so others can have easier access to the background info. Mathsci's behavior in this case has been a bit sub-optimal, first by making an aside about TDA, Zeromous1 and YvelinFRance in a R&I case involving a different group of editors [19] (which degenerated in a large side-conversation, but was eventually filed as a separate report) and then by filing an AE thread on Cla68 [20] (eventually merged with the ongoing one on TDA and Zeromus1 [21].) I suspect this was a contributing factor to Cla68's continued presence at AE. But I think Mathsci's behavior is not out of the ordinary and is perfectly understandable under the circumstances, so I don't think it warrants further committee attention. Finally, Mathsci filed a 2nd AE request against Cla68 [22], this time for Cla68's filing of the present Arbitration request; AE admins can deal with that request on its merits. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Enric Naval

This request completely fails to address the real reason for the ibans. The Devil Advocate's was restoring a edit by a Echigo Mole's socks, and telling Zeromus1 that it's ok to do so and that Mathsci doesn't have any right to undo the edit of a banned sock in someone else's page. The Devil's Advocate was explaining to Zeromus1 that an indef blocked editor is not banned, and "The restriction also does not prohibit interactions with such editors, only restoring their edits". Here TDA is missing the goal of the last motion, where the goal is discouraging banned socks from participating in wikipedia. Encouraging Zerosmu1 to interact with indef-blocked editors, for that matter is bad advice and it's just throwing gasoline to the flames. Specially when the edit had already been identified as originating from Echigo Mole, who is a banned sockmaster, not from an indefblocked editor. Zerosmus1 seems to have believed completely this incorrect idea that it's OK to interact with editors that have been indef-blocked from editing wikipedia, and TDA is reinforcing this belief. And Cla68 was basically defending the whole thing and attacking Mathsci. Cla68 seems to have lost the perspective, in his request he claims that this comment by Mathsci is confrontional, when its actually helpful and contains good advice. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I think filers were asking "How can editors, who did not edit articles related to the original request, be put on sanctions from that case?", which is odd. Furthermore, one-sided IBAN never seems to work (especially when stalking is not really the case here). As to this case's filing - well, T. Canens specifically said in his post that it can be appealed to AC, so personally I think it's okay...? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/2/1/2)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• I tend to think that while this issue is not ripe for a full case (in my opinion, Mathsci probably would best be served in letting other people do the banned user hunting). I would suggest that the parties agree to completely disengage from each other and stop filing nine billion ArbRequests in the various flavors. SirFozzie (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  As to the charge that filing a case is a violation of the one way interaction ban.. we allow folks to appeal AE sanctions to us when they feel it's justified, as this is the final stop of dispute resolution. Normally, we have a high bar towards accepting these requests (as we would have to be shown that the AE admins were clearly outside of reasonableness when placing or enforcing a sanction). However, one sided interaction bans are so game-able (as this request shows), that it would probably be best to make the interaction bans mutual. SirFozzie (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  I was referring to everywhere in the RfArb family, including this request, Cla.. :) SirFozzie (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  Mathsci, please do not do that. We are aware of the situation, and we can review the interaction bans placed at AE as part of our mandate. Should they cross the line here, we will take care of it. SirFozzie (talk) 04:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Recuse. If accepted as a case, I would be providing evidence. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline as a case. One effect of opening a case here would be to provide entertainment value for the malicious banned user(s) who has, wittingly or otherwise, provoked this entire drama. A second effect might be to cause stress to an editor with a self-identified serious health issue. Whether or not there are issues here that would otherwise be worth arbitrating, they are not of such importance that it is worth doing either of these things. I urge the AE administrators to resolve related threads there in as drama-free a fashion as possible for similar reasons. Most of the editors involved in this situation need to step back and ask themselves whether they may have lost their sense of perspective. If this doesn't happen then at some point we may have to do something, but opening a Race and intelligence 2 case is unlikely to be the best way to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• Decline nothing here of such complexity as to warrant a new case. Standard mechanisms are sufficient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
• While I do not agree with Cla that a full arbitration case is necessary, I do believe that some amendment to our current decision is necessary, because the current remedies seem to be as large a source of drama as the dispute itself was (before it came to arbitration). In my mind, the problem has morphed from a prolific content dispute into a more limited "personality" dispute, and in mulling over how to resolve that, I think SirFozzie's suggestion that the interaction bans be applied both ways has merit. I'd be interested in views on the prospect of extending the I-bans from my colleagues and the community. AGK [•] 08:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)