Requests for amendment

Use this section: To request changes to remedies or enforcement provisions, for example to make them stronger or deal with unforeseen problems. To request lifting of an existing Arbitration sanction that is no longer needed (banned users may email the Ban Appeals Subcommittee directly) How to file a request (please use this format!): Go to this request template, and copy the text in the box at the bottom of the page. Click here to edit the amendment subpage, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests. Using the format provided by the template, try to show exactly what you want amended and state your reasoning for the change in 1000 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. Although it should be kept short, you may add to your statement in future if needed as the word limit is not rigidly enforced. List any other users affected or involved. Sign your statement with ~~~~. If your request will affect or involve other users, you must notify each involved person on their user talk page. Return to your request and provide diffs showing that other involved users have been notified in the section provided for notification. This is not a page for discussion. It may be to your advantage to paste the template into your user space or use an off-line text editor to compose your request before posting it here. The main Requests for arbitration page is not the place to work on rough drafts. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests that do not clearly state the following will be removed by Arbitrators or Clerks without comment: The name of the case to be amended (which should be linked in the request header), The clause(s) to be modified, referenced by number or section title as presented in the Final Decision, The desired modifications to the aforementioned clause(s), and A rationale for the change(s) of no more than 1000 words. Requests from banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are one of those individuals.

Initiated by Jack Merridew at 01:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• sulutil:Jack Merridew
• X!'s Edit Counter

Motion affected

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion:

Dec 2009:

Jack Merridew is to be commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban. On review of the past year, the Arbitration Committee replaces the previous motion with the following conditions:

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.
4. User:Jack Merridew will note his agreement with the terms of this motion on this page.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• self-request

• all restrictions lifted per bullet #2's reference to "unrestricted editing", all past accounts unblocked and free to edit as legit alt-accounts, freedom to rename primary account; to not be a second class editor.
  • request withdrawn. Jack Merridew 17:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with Jack recently and I think he has made a great comeback from his ban. I recommend all restrictions be lifted. I would recommend, also, that admins do keep an eye on Jack's edits for 3 more months while he is off restrictions. This was done with me after an unblock from an indef block (of course after my mentor gave me the green light). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope ArbCom will indulge my making a presentation so similar to my earlier one [1], but I'm unsure if the transition from previous to current ArbCom had fully taken place at that time.

Background

In November 2008, Jack's ban was reviewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion and I'd recommend reading that discussion as background.

• The result was that on 9 December 2008 Jack's ban was lifted subject to 8 conditions.

In December 2009, the motion to amend Jack's 2008 unban motion was agreed, reducing the conditions to three, plus his agreement to them (which he gave on 11 December 2009):

1. User:Jack Merridew agrees to edit from one account only "Jack Merridew" on all WMF wikis with the exception of an additional bot account approved through the regular process, and agrees to not edit using open proxies.
2. User:Jack Merridew is to seek out advisers to assist him in transitioning from a formal mentorship to unrestricted editing.
3. User:Jack Merridew agrees that the same as any other editor, he is to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions.

Commentary

The third condition applies to all editors. The second condition has now certainly been met (at least in spirit). Jack has around 170 talk page watchers, and his talk page is often used as a "reference desk" for technical help – which Jack is always happy to give, as anyone can see from viewing it – and I'd encourage arbitrators to read at least some of his talk page to get a flavour of how well he is regarded by other editors, as well as the generosity with which he gives his time them. I submit that Jack knows whom he can turn to to seek advice, and there is no reason remaining for any restriction on his editing.

That leaves the restriction to editing from only one named account. I know Jack has been considering a name change, to leave behind the baggage of the Lord of the Flies avatar, and the third restriction would technically need amendment to allow that to happen. Nevertheless, the important point is that Jack has spent the two years since his unblock contributing constructively and collaboratively. I see no suggestion that he is in any way likely to return to abusive sockpuppetry. Jack has two alternative accounts Gold Hat and Merridew which are linked to Jack Merridew and neither of these has made any remotely abusive edits.

Jack has a considerable quantity of edits on other wikimedia projects, although I'm not sure how relevant arbitrators will feel that is to this request. I believe that it is a further demonstration of his commitment to the betterment of our projects.

I'd ask ArbCom to review Jack's contributions and interactions with other users, and to consider whether they would agree that unnecessary restrictions do no more than create a "second-class" user. Jack's ban was lifted over two years ago. The current restriction is now over a year old, and I'd suggest that it's time to remove it.

Disclaimer: I'd consider myself a "wiki-friend" of Jack's – and proud of it. Nevertheless, this statement is unsolicited, and is my own unaided analysis of the request. --RexxS (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Elen

I'm pretty sure that there is no limit set on the number of accounts that a user (except Jack and a few others) can operate. As long as these are transparently linked and are not simultaneously used in discussion to create false consensus, there is no problem. Many admins have a second account that they use when logged in at public terminals or when travelling to limit the potential damage if that account became compromised. I strongly recommend that to anyone who carries advanced permissions. Some editors have multiple accounts to divide up their work: content creation on one; gnoming, vandal-fighting on others – it helps to compartmentalise interactions with others and allows multiple watchlists (which is very useful if you participate in multiple areas). A few editors have multiple accounts because they can be a refuge from the sometimes humourless tasks that we take on when we contribute. Wouldn't you like to get away from your current wiki-persona once in a while and comment from the perspective of a gigantic reptile or an aggressive, ankle-fixated fish? Jack's no different. He'd like to be 'Gold Hat', the Texan/Mexican gunslinger, every so often. It's not going to break the wiki to let him. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you feel the need to continue with multiple accounts, even if identified as such? Can you consider the fact that given the past, that it might be seen in poor taste by some? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack, if you're only supposed to have one account, how come you've got three? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I have observed Jack over the past couple of years, I have seen him on a road from outcast to accepted, and this can only be a good thing. It seems like he has been very helpful as a technical advisor, and as a general wikignome, so despite our mostly completely incompatible wikiphilosophies, I'd say Jack is currently a net positive to Wikipedia. However, his answers to Casliber and Elen's questions seem wholly unsatisfactory to me, so I'll follow up with a couple of my own:

• What is the purpose of continued use of the sockpuppet accounts (both those made before the ban, and those made after)? Why request the unblock of the Moby Dick account?
• What do you intend to do with these accounts if your restrictions are lifted? What do you intend to do with them if your user name is changed?

It looks like Jack has been using these accounts for a bit of levity recently, and I recall some sort of amendment request weeks ago where there was a very minor uproar about them, which was laughed off. While there is no specific prohibition from using alternate accounts in a non-disruptive way, nor is there any specific prohibition from having "joke" accounts, it doesn't especially benefit the project in any way to use these alternate accounts (except for a bit of comedy, and usually in-jokes at that), so it would be nice to hear a bit more of Jack's perspective before the Arbs decide whether to lift his restriction on using only one account at a time. BOZ (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the committee at least please figure out what exactly is the right way to view Gold Hat (talk · contribs) etc.? Last time I brought this here, Coren declared that viewing them as a violation "is — at best — an unwarranted overreaction". Now Risker is saying that the accounts should be blocked? Can we get some semblance of consistency in arb pronouncements that are barely a month apart? T. Canens (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My first interaction with Jack was soon after joining the project in earnest in April 2010. Being a newbie editor Jack helped show me the ropes, guide me, and mentor me. I soon discovered he had a history, but unlike several other editors here he prominently links his history on his main account, along with revealing all his other accounts. A couple clicks on his userpage, some ...light... reading, and I knew the whole story. As others have mentioned, his talk page is an informal "village pump" for technical questions. He makes a habit of fixing the HTML code in signatures on his userpage. He reaches out to certain recently indef-blocked users who he feels can be mentored to productive editing. In short, Jack is a massive net positive to the project.

All Jack is asking here is for his restrictions to be removed. They serve no purpose anymore except to cause confusion as the "Gold Hat" question of last month indicates. His restrictions are no longer preventing damage to the encyclopedia. In actuality, they are becoming a punitive punishment by turning Jack into a "second-class" editor.

Jack has many talk page watchers, including me. He can be set loose on the wiki safely. He's an administrator on WikiSource for what that's worth here. Remove the stigma by unblocking his previous accounts and ending his arbcom restrictions. N419BH 07:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lift the restriction on good ole Jack. He's been a great help recently with uploading regency maps from Indonesian wikipedia and helping with the regency articles. Certainly a net positive to wikipedia even if he can be a little cheeky at times!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:RexxS made a comment above, describing Jack as a wiki-friend, and I would happily use the same term. At first glance that may look like bias, but people regard Jack as a friend because his presence and contributions are seen as positive. I've known Jack and interracted with him for about a year, and to be honest I did not much care for him to begin with. He has a direct approach that is sometimes blunt and lacking in tact, but I feel my initial impression of him was a little hasty. I believe that everything he does is ultimately with the aim of benefiting the project, and that every article edit is intended as an incremental improvement, and every talk comment as a step forward. I've noticed that he presents his opinions and arguments very lucidly and with reference to policies and protocols, and that he remains patient and focussed even when discussions veer off track. His talk page is full of requests for help, and he has always responded quickly, helpfully and with good humour, and I think he's helped quite a few editors find their feet. His range of knowledge and interest is expansive, and he has a lot to offer. The thing that impresses me most about him is that he is consistent, and that he speaks for what he believes is right, and when something requires participation, he participates. He holds strong opinions, and is willing to express them, and I've also seen him take on board the opinions of others and modify his stance. He is a collaborative editor, and in that regard, I don't think any more could be asked of any editor. I think he's made a substantial contribution to Wikipedia and to maintain these restrictions would serve no purpose. He is a "net positive", and that's something to be encouraged. Rossrs (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same disruptive, abrasive, abusive edits which got him blocked originally, and which the Arbcom choose to dimiss last time. Okip 16:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In view of Jack Merridew's atrocious history on Wikipedia and flippant treatment of the sock issue, I think that sanctions should not be lifted. I am disturbed that an administrator should behave in this way. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've never seen the point to additional accounts (I think I made one once), and I agree that Jack's history is quite egregious, but this is well in the past. The restrictions should be lifted. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Recused as involved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While I personally don't see the need for other accounts either (I have enough trouble with one), I can't see a problem with them if they are all joined up. The other restrictions appear superfluous at this juncture. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused as involved and also because Jack Merridew is a sysop on English Wikisource. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting further statements, but I am minded to lift the restrictions: they no longer appear to be serving any useful purpose. –xeno^talk 18:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  @Okip: including diffs with your statement would be appreciated, as would an explanation as to how your statement relates to the request to lift a restriction on alternate accounts. –xeno^talk 16:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm actually surprised that nobody has blocked the additional accounts, which give the impression of thumbing one's nose at the relatively minimal restrictions that Jack Merridew has been under, a behavioural pattern that is in keeping with the escalation that was seen in the period before Jack required serious sanctions. Frankly, if not for the defiance in creating these additional accounts, I'd have seriously considered lifting all of the remaining sanctions; however, at this point I'd say block the non-bot socks (acknowledged or not) and keep that restriction in place. Risker (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've stated the last time one of those "joke" accounts came up: they are technical violations not worthy of rigid enforcement.

  But, as I've also stated the last time this came up, they are an unwise violation: they may not be worthy of a smackdown, but they certainly speak loud and clear against lifting the restriction. We're here to write a collaborative encyclopedia, not to experiment with the concepts of online identity or to horse around with collections of accounts. I'm certainly not going to support lifting a restriction that is being flaunted repeatedly — even if the individual violations are, in isolation, more ridiculous than harmful. — Coren ^(talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Mathsci (talk) at 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

WP:ARBR&I

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

• Remedy 4, Captain Occam topic-banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ((userlinks|Ludwigs2))

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [2] [3]

• Captain Occam is site-banned from wikipedia for a period to be determined by ArbCom. The topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin could be extended to the two users privately mentioned in evidence to ArbCom.

Members of ArbCom have been aware for some time of ongoing issues of meatpuppetry following the topic ban imposed on Captain Occam and later on Ferhago the Assassin, per WP:SHARE. Evidence has been provided privately to ArbCom about two users associated off-wiki with both Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin.

At the end of January, unprompted, Captain Occam's editing on wikipedia entered a new stage of disruption. Members of ArbCom are already aware of the public letter written under his real name to the Economist. He has used this letter on wikipedia as a springboard to reopen the closed case WP:ARBR&I and renew allegations on wikipedia that have not been accepted by ArbCom. Captain Occam appears to be fanning the flames in several venues, entirely against the spirit of his topic ban. His edits at the moment suggest that, not only is he still in conflict with users previously involved in WP:ARBR&I but no longer active on the articles, but that he is in conflict with ArbCom itself. He has not moved on from the ArbCom case, nor does he seem to take any responsibility for his own actions.

Previous procedural disruption occurred in December when ArbCom had already voted to lift my topic ban on their own initiative. In these circumstances, and in view of his lack of openness in addressing the outstanding issues of meatpuppetry, even when questioned by arbitrators, some form of site-ban unfortunately now seems necessary. Diffs can be provided on request, but almost all recent non-article space postings are relevant. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am referring to what Captain Occam has written on wikipedia, not what was in the letter to the Economist. The publication of the letter has been used as a pretext for making distressing statements on wikipedia, some concerning me, which appear to contravene Captain Occam's extended topic ban, or at least the spirit of the ban. On User talk:Jimbo Wales, Captain Occam stated that the submitted letter contained a reference to Varoon Arya and the claimed circumstances under which he stopped editing. Captain Occam explained that that part of the letter was not published. The passage he mentioned is an unambiguous reference to this part of Captain Occam's evidence in WP:ARBR&I and concerned only me; those claims were not accepted by arbitrators. Captain Occam's initiation of a discussion on that point out of the blue seems disruptive. He has made further statements which also do not tally with the ArbCom findings here. I am upset that he mentioned my name, when there was no reason (see below). The events that led up to the ArbCom case had no particular logic: misjudgements and serious failings occurred which were accurately pinpointed by members of ArbCom; their findings and remedies appeared to resolve matters in a completely satisfactory way, at least as far as I was concerned. I have only praise for the way every arbitrator handled things.

Following the close of the case, however, Captain Occam has firstly attempted to get his girlfriend to edit on his behalf and then, when that failed, they jointly brought in at least two other friends, whose real life identities are known to ArbCom and who have been editing R&I-related pages fairly recently. The discussions that Captain Occam has started at the moment seem equally unhelpful. If they were general and intended to improve wikipedia that would be fine; but the starting point was the ARBR&I case and repeatedly users and past events that should absolutely not be discussed are mentioned. In the statement in the diff above, Captain Occam wrote (I think to Ludwigs2 amongst others), "You probably remember the way this went when we were dealing with Mathsci’s personal attacks last spring. Some of the comments in question were completely obvious and clear-cut violations of WP:NPA, and ArbCom eventually agreed with us about that, but every time this issue was brought up at AN/I most of the people there ended up supporting Mathsci regardless, and it was impossible to find a sysop who was willing to do anything about how he was acting. How can we be confident that this same situation won’t arise when someone is trying to report a popular sheriff who’s abused his power?" Surely sanctions were intended to prevent exactly statements of that nature being made. My name was brought up when it had no relevance to the discussion. That kind of behaviour is not very different from the accusations that Captain Occam made about Roger Davies just before Christmas, also on User talk:Jimbo Wales, just after the vote to lift my topic ban. Roger had proposed the motion and I think Captain Occam was suggesting that the proposal was out of order because he suspected I had influenced Roger behind the scenes. I would understand Newyorkbrad's point if Captain Occam had been talking about someone other than me; but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

• I was unsure how to deal with the incidents described above: because of private information, the issues of meatpuppetry (the details of which have been passed on to ArbCom) could only be dealt with by ArbCom.
• Captain Occam officially invited Ludwigs2 to comment here [4] having added his name to the list of parties. [5] Why he did he add Ludwigs2?
• Zarboublian, editing after a month's absence, is very probably an alternative account of Quotient group, himself an alternative account of A.K.Nole, formerly editing as The Wiki House (with Kenilworth Terrace and Groomtech); he is now in a slightly different geographic location in the UK. I discussed this about a month ago with Shell Kinney. Mathsci (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from stalking me on several wikipedia pages, Zarboublian made the error of making an edit to back up Kenilworth Terrace on an otherwise completely obscure article. [6][7] They concerned this sequence of edits. [8][9][10][11] His latest posting seems to be an admission of guilt. His demeanour and editing patterns are indistinguishable from those of A.K.Nole/Quotient group. [12] [13] Here is yet another of his sockpuppet accounts [14]. Mathsci (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Shell Kinney has confirmed that Zarboublian is an alternative account of A.K.Nole, who was formally banned from interacting with me. Mikemikev, currently site-banned by ArbCom and also indefinitely banned by the community, has just made a contribution as 212.183.140.52 using a vodafone mobile access account. Both their contributions have some similarity with those of Ludwigs2. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet another IP sock 207.203.80.20 has been trolling this page, undoubtedly Mikemikev. (My talk page is semiprotected for that reason.) As far as Xxanthippe's remarks about "obsessive stalking" are concerned, that is what A.K.Nole (Zarboublian) was banned from doing a year ago. Best not to use these terms in the wrong way, because of some of old grudge. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Xxanthippe has written that she thinks that the above comment "implies" that she is a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole. That is a totally incorrect misreading. Off-wiki Shell Kinney has very kindly dealt with A.K.Nole's wikistalking over a long period of time. Mikemikev' postings through the ipsock 207.203.80.20 [15] have continued on User talk:Newyorkbrad. (Mikemikev self-identifies himself by referring to previous sockpuppet postings made by him using a mobile vodafone account in the UK.) Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More diffs of Captain Occam's comments

• on User Talk:RegentsPark [16] "What you need to understand about this now, Mathsci, is that the problem pointed out in my letter has now been acknowledged by a large enough group of people that it’s highly unlikely something isn’t going to be done about it. Even Jimbo Wales has recognized the existence of the problem, in this comment. Enough other people have gotten involved in this issue that even if I were to have nothing to do with it anymore, something would still probably end up being done about it, although the solution may end up being quite a bit different from what I originally proposed to Jimbo. (Which is fine with me.) It’s completely to be expected that you’ll be resistant to this change, since the lack of balance the way things currently are is something you’ve benefited from, but eventually you’ll need to accept that this benefit probably isn’t something you’ll continue having indefinitely." This was written in response to me suggesting to Captain Occam that he should move on and not discuss the case. Instead he make the unequivocal statement that I was treated in an unduly lenient way by ArbCom and administrators.

• in his first comment about the letter tot he Economist [17] on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Captain Occam wrote, "The user I was referring to is user:Varoon_Arya, and my letter is summarizing the reason for quitting the project that he gave in this comment." As explained above, in his evidence to WP:ARBR&I, Captain Occam blamed me for that. In my perception much of that post was an attempt to re-open matters which should have remained closed following the ArbCom case, and concerning me in particular.

• here [18] Captain Occam reverted a comment I made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. When I restored the comment, Captain Occam wrote,[19] "Also, I would appreciate it if someone could do something about personal attacks in this thread. I have a problem with Mathsci’s suggestion that I attempted to commit libel in my letter to the Economist, and that this is the reason why my letter was edited before publication. If anyone actually believes this, I guess I’d be willing to post the un-edited version of my letter on-wiki, so that others can see that this assertion is false." He claimed that my post was a personal attack and that something should be done about it. Cool Hand Luke corrected Captain Occam fairly soon.[20] This misrepresentation by Captain Occam of others, of himself, of arbitrators, of administrators, of the outcome of the ArbCom case, has occurred frequently in interactions with arbitrators, in particular Roger Davies and Shell Kinney. Here is the thread on User talk:jimbo Wales where Captain Occam repeatedly made unfounded accusations about Roger Davies and a claimed friendship with me: apparently this was based on idle speculation, hearsay and tittle-tattle coming from Ludwigs2. As Roger Davies wrote: "Close personal friend", been in touch "regularly", "apparently known Mathsci for a few years". It's all completely untrue. The thread also contains references to the two meatpuppet accounts. Shell Kinney interacted with Captain Occam on that topic. Those two users, one of whom is not particularly old, made a series of mistakes which allowed their accounts to be identified. Editing as a WP:TAG TEAM was precisely what was criticized in the findings of fact on three of those sanctioned under WP:ARBR&I. Captain Occam is the user who appears to have problems with openness and the inappropriate use of friends on wikipedia, not Roger Davies and not me. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs2's comments

I left a link in bold above to the discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales that took place a week before Christmas. There Shell Kinney quoted a statement by Ludwigs2 on wikipedia:(od)Erm, you did notice that Ludwigs2 said "Mathsci may have friends on the arbitration committee (I don't know if that's true or if that's just another elements of Mathsci's preening bluster)". Since that's a rather vague insinuation which he admits to not knowing the truth of coupled with a personal attack thrown in at the end by someone who's been in repeated disputes with Mathsci, do you think it's possible that there isn't really anything to the accusation? Shell babelfish 00:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I need to make it clear what’s happened here. The Economist published a letter from me which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name, and suggesting some possible reforms in Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process. Since the reforms I had in mind could only be implemented by the board of trustees, I brought up my letter in Jimbo Wales’ user talk to make sure he was aware of it. My initial post in Jimbo Wales’ user talk also did not mention the R&I case by name, although it referred to one editor (Varoon Arya) who had been involved in it. Jimbo Wales made it clear that he thought this was an issue worth discussing ([21], [22]) and Cool Hand Luke appeared to think so also. ([23] [24]). I think it’s fairly clear that none of this, at this stage, was a violation of my topic ban.

After I had started this thread, several other past participants in the R&I case noticed either my letter or the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, and figured out that the R&I case was what I was referring to. It’s not hard to figure out, since that’s the only arbitration case I’ve been directly involved in. Two of them (Mathsci and Muntuwandi) showed up in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk challenging me about specifics, and a third (Slrubenstein) made a pair of personal attacks against me in someone else’s user talk. (The attacks have now been deleted using RevDel, so I can’t link to the diffs.) Before these editors began challenging me, I’d had no prior contact with any of them in the past month.

The real mistake I made here was a lack of foresight. Even though my initial statement in Jimbo Wales’ user talk did not violate my topic ban or refer directly to any of these editors, I should have predicted that they would view it as an invitation to engage me in further discussion about the R&I case. That said, I need to emphasize that my intention was not to continue this conflict, and I had no involvement with Mathsci, Muntuwandi or Slrubenstein over this issue until they chose to become involved in it themselves.

I would still like to be able to work towards improving Wikipedia’s dispute resolution system, if there’s a way for me to do that without it being interpreted as continuing the R&I conflict. I am open to advice from arbitrators about whether that’s possible or not, and if ArbCom decides that it isn’t, I’ll stay out of discussions about this from now on. Maunus has offered to become my mentor, which is something else I’m willing to accept if ArbCom decides it’s appropriate. However, I think a site-ban is obviously excessive here. I’m currently in the middle of a major expansion of the William Beebe article, Ferahgo (who would presumably also be covered by a site-ban, due to WP:SHARE) is midway through writing an article about Gerhard Heilmann’s book The Origin of Birds, and we are essentially the only editors working on these articles. If we get site-banned, both of these articles would have to remain indefinitely in their current half-finished state. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie

I would really appreciate some guidance from ArbCom about what is and isn’t covered by my topic ban in this respect. I was under the impression that I’m allowed to make general comments about how Wikipedia’s dispute resolution process could be improved (as I was doing in Jimbo Wales’ user talk), and that I’m allowed to comment in response when someone else has brought me up by name (as in the case of Slrubenstein’s comments). Although the comments from SLR that I was discussing have been deleted using RevDel, arbitrators should still be able to see them, so I’ll link to them anyway: [25] [26]. If I was wrong to assume that I’m allowed to do these things, and ArbCom can give me clear instructions about that, then I can agree to refrain from doing them in the future. But it’s important that this be as specific as possible. Just being told that I need to avoid re-fighting past conflicts isn’t going to be as helpful, because that doesn’t tell me what I should do in situations like this one, where I was discussing something that I considered unrelated until other past participants in the R&I case followed me to the discussion and began discussing me elsewhere. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to LHVU

The reason why I didn’t use the e-mail feature to contact Mr. Wales privately was because my intention posting about it in his user talk was more than just to make sure he noticed my letter. I thought that this was an issue where it would be beneficial to have a community discussion about it. The same problem described in my letter had been described by Sandstein in his ArbCom application, and my post in Jimbo’s user talk also quoted Sandstein’s comment, so at the very least I wanted him to be able to participate in the discussion if he wanted to. Sandstein ended up not participating in it, but I still feel that my posting there led to a productive discussion between myself, Jimbo Wales, Cool Hand Luke, and Ludwigs2, Mathsci’s reaction notwithstanding.

However, per the advice from Newyorkbrad and Roger Davies, I’ll be more cautious in the future to avoid initiating discussions that others could see as related to the R&I topic, even if I don’t see them that way myself. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my name above, as I am not involved in or affected by this in any way.

I think this is a case where BOOMERANG ought to apply. Even though this arbitration case is long over, Mathsci is still obviously holding a grudge, and still trying to find any excuse (no matter how far fetched) to get the people he was arguing with in trouble. I'd like to ask the committee to impose the following sanction on Mathsci:

• For a period of one year, Matchsci is prohibited from making any comment whatsoever, anywhere on project, about other editors or their activities.

Mathsci has an unfortunate tendency to to rely on ad hominem arguments in his complaints; his posts to me invariably contain some snide reference or demeaning comment, and the only reason he doesn't treat me with the overt hostility he shows to others from the R&I case is that I disengage from communication with him as quickly as possible. A year in which even mild rudeness and personal attacks are sanctionable might encourage him to develop more socially responsible forms of raising and addressing project issues.

I will open a second amendment thread on this request, if that is needed. I am really tired of this kind of crapulence, and would like to see it put to a stop.

The request against Occam strikes me as silly, sophomoric and tendentious. It does not serve the project's goals, but merely feeds some apparently unquenchable vindictive urge that Mathsci is subject to. --Ludwigs2 23:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment to Mathsci

M, I don't "tittle-tattle" (whatever the hell that means). I'll remind you again not to make up stupid crap about me, because I will call you on it every time. Please redact that comment. --Ludwigs2 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to sysop: I am tired of Mathsci's mindless crapulence. Would a sysop please ask Mathsci to either redact the lie he said about me above or provide a supporting diff to justify its inclusion? If I do not get a response from a sysop here today, I will take the matter up at ANI - I am not in the mood to put up with this bull, and am happy to export this trivial matter to whatever forum I need to export it to get satisfaction. thanks. --Ludwigs2 15:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mathsci: thanks for providing source for that lie you told about me. Please note that the original context of that quote (which I am sure you are aware of) was in response to Occam accusing you of having personal relationships with Arbs (a misperception which you fostered steadily on the R&I talk page). I was in fact telling him that it was not the case so far as I know. So in fact I was not 'tittle-tattling' on you, but rather defending you by defusing one of Occam's more extreme concerns (though with admittedly snide overtones). If you want to complain about my being uncivil I would happily accept that as true: I might produce several dozen diffs in which you say things that sound tremendously like preening to my ear in order to justify the comment (and which would also explain how Occam got bamboozled into thinking you were more tightly connected than you actually are), but even then you'd have a point. but do not make up lies about me. I'm still waiting on you to redact. --Ludwigs2 23:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• comment I don't think that topic bans imposed at wikipedia extend to other public news media - I think that censoring someone because of participating in the public debate about wikipedia would be a bad move, and promote a kind of wikipedia community we don't want. People should be allowed to discuss their wiki experiences, also the bad ones, in other venues without that having any bearings on their editing. However, the appeal to Jimbo was clearly a bad move on the part of Captain Occam and does suggest that he is having more than a little trouble dropping the issue here on wikipedia. I think Mathsci is als inflaming the issue and that a more becoming mode of action for him would have been to simply leave it alone, since Occam's communication with Jimbo is not really harming anyone and is unlikely to have any effect on the particular issues covered by the R&I topic ban. I think an indef ban is excessive if Captain Occam recognizes having been in error and shows a will to proceed to become a valuable editor in other venues as he is currently showing good progress towards (e.g. at William Beebee). ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This accusation must be supported by diffs. Mathsci levels several serious charges - meatpuppetry, disruption, reopening a closed case, renew allegations, several venues, violation of topic ban, irresponsibility. The sanctions called for are equally serious - site banning. It really seems inadequate to airily allude to "almost all recent non-article postings" to support multiple highly serious allegations - serious accusations require serious evidence to be taken seriously. Zarboublian (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here Captain Occam says, "I wrote a letter to The Economist which did not mention any specific editor or arbitration case by name." On Jimbo's talk page he wrote, "The Economist edited my letter...[and] also left out where I mentioned who was the user whose reason for leaving I described in detail." Professor marginalia (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Appears to be cup of tea time rather than an ArbCom melee. Collect (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment so is there anything for arbcomm here or is it just an excuse for Matchsi to rant aganst people he doesnt like? 212.183.140.52 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Advise take no action on proposed amendment. Obsessive Wiki-hounding by MathSci. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

In his edit of 11 February MathSci implies that I am a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole (Zarboublian). This is false, as may be checked by CU. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Why is Mathsci allowed to engage in systematic persecution of those whose beliefs he deems offensive? --207.203.80.20 (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If someone has had a letter published off wiki, regarding issues relating to Wikipedia, and regards forewarning Jimmy Wales of the fact as necessary - why not use the email facility, rather than one of the most highly trafficked pages on the project? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• From my perspective this appears to be more of an arbitration enforcement report than a request for amendment. Captain Occam is already restricted by an arbitration enforcement decision, and his recent comments are arguably in breach of this restriction. PhilKnight (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Phil here. Comments made off of Wikipedia are definitely outside our remit as far as restrictions in almost any case, but there are comments onwiki that may be considered breach of prior restriction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It does appear to me that Captain Occam is doing his best to re-fight old battles, and this needs to stop. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Captain Occam should stick to mainspace for awhile, and work on articles far removed from those that got him into difficulty. Mathsci should allow others to keep an eye on Captain Occam's activities at this point rather than worrying about them himself. Absent additional problems, I do not favor any action by the committee at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per all the above, moving away from the area needs to happen and a warning should be sufficient. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be best for everyone to move on within their respective restrictions. I do not think a modification is warranted at this time. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this amendment is warranted just yet though I do concur with what my colleagues have said about WP:AE perhaps being pertinant. Other thoughts?
  @Captain Occam. In its simplest interpretation, the amended restriction requires you to disengage completely both directly and indirectly from the topic ("including user talk pages"), unless specifically responding to others ("They are free to respond at noticeboards whenever their own editing is mentioned"). This means it prevents you making even coded or oblique references. If you wish to avoid further sanction, perhaps the safest way for you to interpret how this applies to you is to ask yourself before you make an action/edit how you would perceive the same edit/action if it had been made by a topic-banned adversary of yours. If you conclude that such an action/edit of theirs arguably breaches the restriction, don't make a similar one yourself.
  @Mathsci. I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.
  @Ludwigs: I'm surprised by the tone of your comments and must ask you be to be more circumspect.
   Roger ^talk 06:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree completely with Roger Davies. ALL of you need to step away from this topic area in any way, shape or form. This appears to be an AE issue. Risker (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Better part of a week later, and I have nothing to add to what Risker said. Let it go. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]