This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guerillero (talk | contribs) at 01:25, 14 May 2012 (closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:25, 14 May 2012 by Guerillero (talk | contribs) (closing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)|
Main review page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) — Original case page |
| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | Evidence is invited specific to the following points:
 lists.wikimedia.org (please see communications and privacy statement). The Committee will decide whether to admit each email submission on its own merits. |
Evidence presented by Mathsci
Response to Question 1
No. As far as I am aware there has been no interaction of any significance between Ferahgo the Assassin and me, outside this request for amendment. All issues involving WP:ARBR&I have already been dealt with at WP:AE.
Supplementary response to Question 1
- from posting at 22:10 26 February
Response to Questions 2 and 3
Yes and yes. I already answered these questions in the final response to the two motions on the main case page (there have been further problems from Mikemikev relating to the death of Slrubenstein):
2. Yes. Echigo mole, a serial wikistalker for three years now, who has disturbed this arbcom page at least 6 times and has attempted to troll on article space pages, including most recently mathematics articles. Some of his edits have involved outing. (b) Mikemikev, a banned user who uses racist and antisemitic language on and off wikipedia. Abritrators and oversighters have had to disappear account names which have been open outing; an arbitrator had to remove diffs from ANI in an unrelated discussion where an ipsock of Mikemikev wrote "I agree with anythying that says." That was in place for a day or two. Mikemikev has created an attack page on commons, subsequently deleted by Philippe Beaudette through the help of Moonriddengirl, which he had posted on my talk page. In addition he has posted pages on Stormfront about "Misplaced Pages Jews" and has several times attempted to post an attack article on ED.ch.
3. Yes. Unless I am mistaken, all SPI/CU requests initiated by me concerning sockpuppetry in this area have related to Mikemikev. He has created multiple named sock accounts in this area, some of them aimed at attacking individuals. Examples of other individuals: RLShinyblingstone ], MarginaliaSucks (talk · contribs) . Problematic names: Juden Raus, Suarneduj. Mikemikev managed to control himself a little while he was on wikipedia, but racist/antisemitic postings went on beforehand on the web and continue now with the same username. Several copyvios by sockpuppets of Mikemikev have been deleted from commons at my request. As another editor pointed out recently, he is now editing in parallel at metapedia under the same username. Occasionally he uses proxy accounts in Australia and the Far East. I have also reported reported ipsocks of Tholzel, another banned user. From my point of view, far more disruption has occurred on Europe and Seventh-adventist articles. The most recent problematic accounts there have been Andriabenia, Rejedef and BelloWello.
Question from AGK
Mathsci, you say that " uses proxy accounts in Australia and the Far East." Do you mean that he makes anonymous edits from these locations, or that he uses throw-away sock-puppets that originate there? AGK 20:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mikemikev's socking can be read off from Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive and the two sockpuppet categories attached to his name. The latest example of a proxy account occurred on 16 March after I wrote that response: it was yet another attempt to besmirch the memory of Steven Rubenstein. It was the proxy ip 68.147.204.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in Canada this time. He dug out two edits by Slrubenstein and myself going back to the community ban of Mikemikev, which occurred when there was still confusion between the editing of Echigo mole (using vodafone numbers) and Mikemikev. In fact Echigo mole participated simultaneously as Zarboublian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an ipsock in the discussions on WP:BLPN in late May 2010 that precipitated WP:ARBR&I and gave evidence also as an IP during that case (calling himself the Sheffield IP and using the IP ranges 94.196.*.* and 94.197.*.* currently being used for ipsocking by Echigo mole). He also participated in the discussion about the orthography of Marseille, which was being pushed by Pmanderson in December 2010. Zarboublian was blocked indefinitely by Shell Kinney with two or three other sockpuppets of Echigo mole/A.K.Nole a year ago. Again that information is recorded in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole/Archive. Mathsci (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the open proxy in Beijing he used.124.115.214.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- And here's the proxy he used from Australia.144.140.52.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I hope that answers your question. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Here's the open proxy in Beijing he used.124.115.214.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Mathsci (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Response to Question 4
Yes. The contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, who have stated that they edit from the same location, are indistinguishable outside article space. Although I have examined in detail their editing histories, diff by diff, I cannot see that picking out diffs from those histories would serve any purpose at all. I certainly do not have a score to settle with either of them. Everybody, including me, makes mistakes and the best thing is to learn from them.
Response to Question 5
No. I am still a little surprised that Captain Occam was site-banned.
Suggestion
To clear the air and as an experiment, might this review not be an appropriate occasion to lift unconditionally the topic bans on David.Kane and Captain Occam/Ferahgo the Assassin?
Supplementary response to Question 4
Following Newyorkbrad's comments in accepting this review and not having seen any responses to Question 1 either here or submitted in private, I will only write briefly. The problem of the two accounts Captain Occam (CO) and Ferahgo the Assassin (FtA) being technically indistinguishable was accurately described by Shell Kinney in September 2010. A formal topic ban was imposed on 7 October 2010 by NuclearWarfare. The indistinguishability of the accounts continued with seeking sanctions on an editor WeijiBaikeBiabji (WBB) with whom CO-FtA disagreed. FtA carried that dispute to the talk pages of administrators and started an AE request. Shortly after the topic ban was applied, three new editors started editing in the topic area (SightWatcher, Woodsrock, TrevelyanL85A2). They edited in concert with CO-FtA with shared points of view (e.g. CO FtA SW Tr Wr ). Their editing in concert can be seen here: One of the new arrivals referred to CO's "good organizing work". I commented privately to Shell Kinney about possible sockpuppetry, because of inexplicable edits by newbies and the bizarre talk page comments of Woodsrock. Shell Kinney had already noticed the odd editing but had ruled out sockpuppetry. When the possibility of sockpuppetry was mentioned, CO suggested a report to SPI. Subsequently after the RfC/U on WBB, the topic ban on CO-FtA was extended by EdJohnston. Later in December 2010, Shell Kinney commented in two simultaneous threads on WP:ANI and User talk:Jimbo Wales about the editing in concert and claims of impropriety concerning another arbitrator. In 2011, CO wrote a letter to the Economist which in an unpublished form claimed I had driven a named editor off wikipedia. Following the WP:AESH case, CO commented on User talk:Ludwigs2 about me in negative terms. referring in particular to a "wiki-vendetta". He repeatedly made requests for some form of interaction ban because of a claimed dispute. He then repeatedly lobbied Jclemens and made the first request for an amendment, as a joint request for CO-FtA. FtA's contribution there had to be redacted on the instructions of Roger Davies when she repeated claims of a wiki-vendetta. That request for amendment had followed from CO commenting on WP:AE in a case where he had not been involved. The exact same amendment was proposed by FtA in January 2012 after CO had been site-banned by Risker. During her submission information known only to CO was mentioned concerning two edit summaries relating to Mikemikev that were oversighted at my request. I would agree therefore with Shell Kinney's assessment that outside article space, the accounts are technically indistinguishable. It is evident that FtA has put a lot of effort into the request for amendment in response to one edit by me. Her editing on talk pages of arbitrators has also shown more effort on that front. That has been accompanied by a moderate return to content editing. That FtA has acted as a proxy for CO seems undisputable and that she has had friends proxy edit for them both unfortunately also seems to be the case as Shell Kinney already said on-wiki.
- Note that in the response of FtA below to a question about sockpuppetry, FtA has repeated the identical arguments put forward by CO about Scibaby in the ANI discussion in December 2010 already linked above. There Mikemikev intervened as Flobbably, was reported immediately by me to SPI/CU and indef blocked. This is a further instance of the indistinguishability of the two accounts outside article space.
Request from Roger Davies
It would be helpful indeed if you could cross-reference the material you wish us to rely on to your various previous statements. The easiest way is probably to add the {{anchor}} (using, say "Note 1", "Note 2" etc at appropriate places in your various previous statements) and adding a note under each question heading along the lines of see "Note 1", "Note 2", "Note 6" etc, with the "Note 1", "Note 2" etc being the tags used in the anchors. Thank you, Roger Davies 08:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or, better still, simply extract the pertinant stuff and copy it here. Roger Davies 09:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- That has already been done for questions 2 and 3, which I copied from the main page. Probably I will add other evidence before March 26 (which will supplement the response to Q4 above). I hope also that any evidence presented by Captain Occam/Ferahgo the Assassin will be relayed to me and others in some form. Presumably, since Ferahgo the Asassin and Captain Occam are submitting as a team, the limits on the length of evidence and number of diffs have been relaxed in some way. I don't envisage going over the limit in the number of words or diffs (not counting your section here). Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- In response to Roger Davies' request below, I will provide evidence of the similarities in editing of the accounts of Captain Occam and (CO) and Ferahgo the Assassin (FtA) outside article space. I will do this during the course of the day (hopefully there will be a first version before lunchtime in France), making a summary with diffs, gathered using an alternative account, and including dates of email exchanges with Shell Kinney and Newyorkbrad, Shell Kinney has given me permission to make available in private those emails to arbcom, if the need arises. We have in addition been in contact during the last week. Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- In addition I removed my cumulative response to the initial Request for amendment when the entry on the page morphed into two motions to start a review or full case. With Roger Davies' request in mind and for ease of reference for everybody, I have copied my initial response (over 37,000 bytes were removed in one edit) to a subpage: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review/Mathsci-initial-submission. Parts of that cumulative response might be added to supplement answers above. Mathsci (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- In response to Roger Davies' request below, I will provide evidence of the similarities in editing of the accounts of Captain Occam and (CO) and Ferahgo the Assassin (FtA) outside article space. I will do this during the course of the day (hopefully there will be a first version before lunchtime in France), making a summary with diffs, gathered using an alternative account, and including dates of email exchanges with Shell Kinney and Newyorkbrad, Shell Kinney has given me permission to make available in private those emails to arbcom, if the need arises. We have in addition been in contact during the last week. Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- That has already been done for questions 2 and 3, which I copied from the main page. Probably I will add other evidence before March 26 (which will supplement the response to Q4 above). I hope also that any evidence presented by Captain Occam/Ferahgo the Assassin will be relayed to me and others in some form. Presumably, since Ferahgo the Asassin and Captain Occam are submitting as a team, the limits on the length of evidence and number of diffs have been relaxed in some way. I don't envisage going over the limit in the number of words or diffs (not counting your section here). Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Or, better still, simply extract the pertinant stuff and copy it here. Roger Davies 09:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Supplementary evidence by Mathsci (26 Apr 2012)
- Note to arbitrators: This is my response to Roger Davies' question. As I have explained in private, my professional obligations do not permit any further detailed responses of this kind (beyond passing comments) until after 12 May when I return to France from the USA. Before that date, including now, I am extremely busy, so please no further intrusions on my time. I apologize for the length, but I do not have time to shorten things in the current circumstances Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This content was first added on the PD talk page, so internal references are to that page. Some copyedits might be made to the content below, which was prepared hastily and has not been carefully proof-read. Not that at this stage it particularly matters. Mathsci (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
2010
- Since she entered into active editing in 2010, a significant number of FtA's edits have been as a proxy for her boyfriend CO to support his point of view. From the outset that included making unsubstatiated statements that attacked me. The editing as a proxy was reflected on-wiki in a string of shared opinions. When barred from proxy-editing in the area of his topic ban, they jointly recruited at least two geographically displaced friends to proxy-edit on their behalf and in coordination with them. That editing repeated the conduct criticized in WP:ARBR&I: it was WP:BATTLEGROUND editing by a tag team to create a false consensus and at that stage target and harass a particular editor (WeijiBaikeBianji). Although the proxy editing appears to have been fairly carefully organized, there were a number of problems, explained in my evidence where diffs can be found. The editing aroused suspicions amongst arbitrators almost immediately. The proxy editing was characterized amongst other things by inexplicable shared opinions about wikipedia editors by new arrivals. One such, which will be relevant here, concerned Ludwigs2, a long-term wiki-friend of CO. Ludwigs2 was blocked once for making personal attacks on me (he has called me a troll on numerous occasions, including on the evidence page of WP:ARBR&I). After being cautioned in WP:AESH, he was later site-banned when the same type of disruptive conduct was directed towards multiple administrators and editors. Here are SightWatcher's edits regarding Ludwigs2 and citing him as an authority. Other shared opinions about me are already illustrated with diffs higher up on this page. On-wiki Shell Kinney, as described in my evidence, disclosed that she had conducted an email correspondence with CO about the proxy-editing. He had questioned the evidence and had dismissed the claims of proxy-editing as coincidence. In eDcemebr 2010 CO repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims of cronyism between Roger Davies and myself, citing Ludwigs2 as his source. It was Shell Kiney who explained to CO that Ludwigs2's statement had been another personal attack or innuendo and had no foundation whatsoever. It would appear that at that stage CO's editing on wikipedia in various venues was geared to preventing my topic ban being lifted.
- A further selection of problematic edits by FtA from 2010: ("I was a bit afraid of mathsci when he was there") ("Is it acceptable for Mathsci to be commenting in this thread?") In the last of these diffs FtA lectures me in a confrontational way on what my topic ban entails from her point of view. SightWatcher and TrevelyanL85A2 have on other occasions repeated almost verbatim FtA's phraseology.
- Note: For other diffs and further detail, please see my evidence above, the link to FtA's first 20 edits and other examples with diffs on the PD talk page.
2011
- In 2011 the battleground approach took a slightly different form. There was almost no interaction at all between me and FtA on Misplaced Pages. There were two exceptions to that (see below); and in addition FtA and I both briefly edited Orson Scott Card. However, in January 2011 CO publicized a letter on User talk:Jimbo Wales that had been published under his RL name in the Economist. On WP he disclosed that the submitted letter mentioned a specific editor, Varoon Arya, no longer editing wikipedia. That part of the letter was not published and CO offered to place the unedited letter on wikipedia. Then and on other occasions, including in his evidence for WP:ARBR&I, CO has made the unsubstantiated claim that Varoon Araya (and other editors) have left wikipedia because of my editing. Since there is no evidence of that, repeating the claim is a personal attack. In April 2011 at the close of the WP:AESH case, when Ludiwgs2 received a warning from arbcom, CO made two edits to User talk:Ludwigs2 which went even further in that direction. They are cited in my evidence and reproduced in full on the evidence talk page. On this page FtA has linked to those statements and agreed with them, mentioning Ludwigs2 possibly for the first time on-wiki. Other symptoms of the proxy-editing appeared off-wiki: FtA has confirmed on-wiki that her DeviantArt friends created attack pages on FurAffinity, making racial and sexual slurs about me and Muntiwandi: these explicitly mentioned wikipedia and the arbcom mailing list. They have been described on the amendment page and here. SightWatcher's proxy editing resumed in April-May 2011, when reported he me out of the blue on User talk:Risker using the shared FtA interpretation of my virtual extended topic ban. SightWatcher also canvassed other users. (CO repeated SightWatcher's complaint almost word-for-word later in an unrelated WP:AE request in August.) In June 2011 CO contacted several arbitrators to find out about the possibility of lifting his topic ban. Also during June, TrevelyanL85A2 briefly resumed editing in R&I, again out of the blue. At the end of June 2011 I made a suggestion in a short email to CO, "Considering the off-wiki activity, in particular the joke accounts for Muntuwandi and Mathsci on FurAffinity, which involved racist slurs, I will be recommending that the topic bans on you and your girlfriend be lifted, but only on condition that you both agree never to edit any race-related articles on wikipedia ever again." After that CO seems to have decided that I should be "removed from the equation", as Roger Davies has put it. CO started claiming there was some conflict or dispute between us. His content editing stopped and he starting militating and lobbying for restrictions on my editing, again making claims of some conflict or dispute. In September 2011 he filed the first request for amendment, requsting the identical IBAN as in January 2012. During that request, I repeated the suggestion that I'd made in the email. In her submission to that Request for amendement, FtA repeated the personal attack that CO had placed on Ludwigs2's talk page, mentioning "a personal vendetta". She had to redact that statement at Roger Davies' request. During CO's subsequent lobbying of Jclemens concerning me, CO and FtA (as well as Aprock) responded to Jclemens' request for help in gathering diffs for the abortion arbcom case. They submitted evidence privately which it seems was later added to the workshop page. In particular diffs were added for MastCell (who had prviously blocked FtA for violating her topic ban) and Orangemarlin. At that stage Orangemarlin had just undergone major surgery. CO repeatedly raised doubts about Orangemarlin's state of health on the PD page and insistently pressed for sanctions on ANI. He was subsequently site-banned in mid-December by Risker for continuing the same battleground conduct cited in WP:ARBR&I.
- Selected diffs of CO: (repetition of FtA's "creepy" meme) (makes the claim that everything I write is a misrepresentation during the first Request amendment; FtA repeated that statement in the second Request for amendment) (statements to Jclemens about an imagined "conflict", the impossibility of an RfC/U, that will be repeated by FtA in 2012) (oversighted edit summary that he had seen, used later also as a means of attack by FtA in her January 2012) (gaming the system with false claims of outing and attempts to frame me)
- Note: I have omitted diffs of CO lobbying on administrator/arbitrator talk pages, but they can be supplied on request. Here are just two examples.
2012
- In January 2012 TrevelyanL85A2 became active again as a proxy-editor in R&I. Aprock left a warning on his talk page, which was on my watchlist, and I left a second warning. In the intervening 8 hours it is highly likely, given the technical information requested by Casliber, that FtA and TrevelyanL85A2 were in contact off wikipedia. He replied citing the usual virtual extended topic ban, and immediately posted to FtA's talk page, before I had replied. On her talk page and later his, FtA repeated again the DeiantArt mantra about a virtual extended topic ban.
- FTA then entered a new phase of proxy-editing in her wikipedia career, with her most intense period of editing on wikipedia. without precedent so far. She repeated almost verbatim her boyfriend's request for an amendment. In this diff she uses almost the same phraseology as one of the diffs of CO above from September 2011 (i.e., too many false claims by Mathsci even to respond): this is not a coincidence. As already explained, material she has produced and statements she has made are just repetitions of what CO has written previously in September 2011. Most of her evidence has little relation to her. Like CO in September, she has complained about a "dispute" or a "conflict", without being able to describe at any stage what it is or where it has happened on wikipedia; many of her interchanges with arbitrators can be characterized as WP:IDHT. She has claimed that my behaviour is a problem on wikipedia, but has not provided any diffs which support that view, when requested by Newyorkbrad and Elen of the Roads, just bluster and a gross misrepresentation of the dealing between arbitrators and me. She wrote the following, without any trace of self-doubt, "Mathsci has a long history of battleground behavior against me, especially conducting off-wiki research about me and posting his conclusions in public, even though he knows that off-wiki evidence can only be sent to Arbcom in private. Many examples of this before and during this thread are available." This contradict the statements of Shell Kinney in my evidence in a very serious way; on the other hand arbitrators have no reason to doubt the integrity of Shell Kinney. CO's personal attacks on User talk:Ludwigs2 made unsubstantiated claims of an ideological point of view in my edits, which at no stage has CO been able to support either on his own or through any of his proxies, be it FtA, SightWatcher or TrevelyanL85A2. On this page FtA has given her vote of approval to CO's attacks on Ludwigs2's talk page.
- The new stage in FtA's editing as a proxy also involved lobbying of multiple arbitrators and administrators off the arbcom pages, playing one off against the other when they did not agree with what she wished to hear. After EdJohnston tells her that the discussion should not be taking place on his talk page, she neverthless tries to bring Jclemens into that discussion. Edjohnston corrects her on Jclemens' talk page but she exhibits more IDHT When told to to chill out by Jclemens, she responds that this is apparently all about appealing her topic ban . She then misrepresents Jclemens to EdJohnston and makes unfounded personal attack on me with false claims about off-wiki information being posted. She then complains about EdJohnston to AGK. Finally she attempts to influence motion on PhilKnight's talk page, lobbying once more for CO to be included in an IBAN, keeping AGK and Jclemens informed. She received a formal warning from Roger Davies.
- FtA has played the victim. Like CO in Decemeber 2010, she has at no stage taken responsibility for the proxy-editing of her two friends TrevelyanL85A2 and SightWatcher, both of whom are now immediately identifiable. While giving unlimited amounts of personal information about herself, she has claimed now that the 20 WP diffs she has gathered are too private to be presented on arbcom pages. She has also made unsubstantiated claims that her private life and that of her friends has been affected in some unspecified way. Despite a trickle of dinosaur editing, the main thrust of her editing has been as a proxy for CO, in his recent campaign against me. Since January 2012, the volume and frequency of her edits has changed dramatically. Outside article space it has been technically indistinguishable from that of CO. During that period she has continued his battlefield campaign and has made a series of unsubstantiated statements about me, unsupported by diffs. Like CO it appears she wants to use any available process (arbcom processes or RfC/Us ) on wikipedia to expose my "behaviour". Yet so far on wikipedia neither she nor CO have been able to describe or illustrate it with diffs. This period of her editing has been highly disruptive, a WP:BATTLEFIELD campaign with the false pretext of harassment or invasion of privacy. Most recently she has attempted to argue that WP:SHARE no longer applies. She has also been unwilling to produce diffs on wikipedia to support her statements. None of this is normal. Her false comparison of this review with the Timid guy case on Jclemens's talk page and on the amendement page seems like another attempt to WP:GAME the system. In the previous diff she writes: "If Arbcom could look beyond both of our efforts to deal with Mathsci's harassment, they would also see that there's been very little overlap between the articles that Occam and I edit. Our accounts might be indistinguishable technically, but behavior should count for more than technical evidence." The word "our" presumably shows that she is speaking on behalf of herself and CO. Yet no evidence has so far been accepted of either outing or harassment: her persisent unsubstantiated claims on that front constitute a personal attack that has continued unremittingly for four months now. Equally well she has made unsubstantiated claims of personal attacks without providing any evidence on-wiki with diffs, just bald statements. On the enforcement and amendment pages she has made false claims that I requested she be blocked. When a large group of editors commented during the amendment case she made claims of a cabal and in so doing displayed an "us vs them" mentality which is at the basis of a battlefield approach. The continual unsubstantiated allegations of personal attacks and harassment, unsupported by diffs, that she has made over a four month period again constitute a personal attack.
Evidence presented by Hipocrite
Is MathSci Being Harassed by Socks?
Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
Yes. MathSci is the only user diligently dealing with the problem. Since September 2010, there have been 53 MikeMikeV sock reports (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev/Archive) - MikeMikeV is the sock who is currently defaming deceased contributor SLRubenstein with anti-Semitic remarks (ref ).
Of those, the accurate reporters (ignoring unrelated results) have been: Mathsci 88% Resident Antrhropologist 7% Professor marginalia 5%
Unless the committee is willing to replicate MathSci's work in dealing with anti-semetic racist vandal MikeMikeV, stopping MathSci from dealing with him is equivalent to unbanning him. Instead, ArbCom should commend MathSci for protecting the encyclopedia from racist, anti-Semitic vandals. Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Evidence from Captain Occam
Captain Occam (talk · contribs) submitted private evidence by email to the Arbitration Committee on 22 March 2012. Roger Davies 08:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Ferahgo the Assassin
My responses to some of these questions involve personal information, so I will not be posting the entirety of my evidence here (the rest will be emailed). I will answer in public the things I'm able to.
Mathsci and socks
My short answer is: clearly some of these sockmasters trolling in the R&I area are highly disruptive and need to be dealt with by someone. Usually, Mathsci's pursuit against the sock bureau does more good than harm, and he's successfully identified a good number of them in the past. However, I do think that this attitude (perhaps understandably) causes an unfounded degree of suspicion and hostility to fall on innocent newbies. The best example is probably Yfever. A checkuser about Yfever came up negative, but the claim that Yfever is a sock continued being brought up by Mathsci and other involved editors in this deletion review, despite two admins commenting that this was the wrong venue for those accusations. Note that the main argument that Yfever is a sockpuppet (that a real newbie couldn't have found a userfied deleted article) doesn't hold up, because the userfied page had just been linked to here.
Again, I think Arbcom should consider using the Climate change case as a model for the R&I sock problem, as it involves a similar situation (that is, one known and disruptive sock master (Scibaby) causing unreasonable levels of hostility toward new editors). Another parallel between this and the CC case is that the behavior of one of the same editors is an issue in both cases.
I also want to point out, re: the sock issue, that the socks have nothing whatsoever to do with me - I have never used socks, nor have I knowingly interacted with any of the socks or their sockmasters, or supported or condoned their activities.
Distinguishability of myself and Occam
According to the WP:SHARE policy, if editors with the same IP address don’t want to disclose the connection between their accounts, "they should avoid editing in the same areas, particularly on controversial topics." Occam and I haven’t edited the same articles since 2010. Based on this policy, I don’t think the connection between our accounts should matter when we haven’t edited the same topic in over a year.
I certainly don't think I should be site-banned. For at least a year now I've done almost nothing but contribute productively to paleontology and evolution articles, including some of my artwork that was created specifically for Misplaced Pages. I am currently in the middle of a very detailed and expansive article (Specimens of Archaeopteryx) that I cannot imagine anyone else taking over at this point in time. My contribution history speaks for itself.
Mathsci's comment here that I am "continuing the disruption that led to his (Occam's) site-ban" reminded me of one other huge difference between me and Occam. Risker explained her reason for blocking Occam here: "You have done nothing since your return but participate in disputes." As I said above, my contribution history is basically the opposite.
Comment on Mathsci's suggestion
I am encouraged by Mathsci's suggestion that my topic ban be lifted as a way to "clear the air". If my topic ban were lifted, my focus at Misplaced Pages would continue to be paleontology articles, as that is the topic area I'm most invested in. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
New evidence by Ferahgo (April 27th)
Note: this includes some diffs that were in my original private evidence on March 26th, as well as some from my newer email evidence on April 26th. As Roger Davies requested here, this is behavior directed at me and Occam. Some diffs do include examples of a battleground attitude toward other editors and me at the same time.
Mathsci has a history of battleground conduct towards me and Occam
I must emphasize that Occam and I were both trying to ignore Mathsci from December 2010 until August 2011. And besides supporting Occam's request for an interaction ban in September, I continued trying to ignore Mathsci for months beyond that. The first few diffs also demonstrate a battleground attitude by showing his inability to drop his animosity towards us even when we left him alone for nearly a year.
- Mathsci attempts to link user:Miradre to a specific off-wiki friend of mine, who has absolutely nothing in common with Miradre besides country of residence. Note that the Deviantart account in question displays this person's real name, so Mathsci's comment is also an indirect attempt at outing Miradre.
- Mathsci brings up me and Occam at AE, in a discussion that involved neither of us, to attack User:Boothello.
- Mathsci brings up his grievances about me and Occam in a discussion with 2over0 that had nothing to do with either of us.
- Two examples of Mathsci involving himself in the abortion case in order to complain about Jclemens' interaction with us, and also (in the second diff) bringing up the R&I sanctions against us where they had nothing to do with anything. This first diff was literally the first comment he ever made on the abortion case.
- Mathsci inserts himself into the civility enforcement case to complain about Occam, again bringing up the sanctions against Occam where they aren't relevant.
- Mathsci threatens me, Occam, and user:TrevelyanL85A2 with a community ban because TrevelyanL85A2 made an edit to the human intelligence template.
Mathsci has made multiple attempts to push for sanctions against me and Occam since last year
Only the fifth attempt was successful, the rest were declined or ignored:
Mathsci has displayed a battleground attitude during the amendment thread and review
- False claims of misrepresentation and claiming I’m “combative” when I was just asking an arbitrator a question about the situation.
- Claiming I’m “doing little else on Misplaced Pages except for militating against ”, when at that point almost 3/4 my edits since opening the request had been to paleontology articles.
- Accusing me of a copyright violation on a paleontology article, after it had already been determined the copyvio template was added in error.
- Claiming my edits are no different from those of an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer.
- Following me to Commons and reporting an honest copyvio problem in a very combative manner.
- Claiming that gives him the excuse to monitor my activity at Deviantart.
- Calling me a liar, attacking the dinosaur illustrations I uploaded, claiming the place I post my art off-wiki is “a site for kids”, etc. Blatant incivility.
- More battleground behavior during the review.
- Accusing me of colluding with two editors (SightWatcher and Woodsrock) who haven’t edited in R&I in the past year.
- Oversighted diff of Mathsci linking to a forum where Occam and I are members, that I have never linked or mentioned anywhere on Misplaced Pages.
- After the previous diff was oversighted, and Mathsci was emailed with an explanation of why, Mathsci claims I have "persistently lobbied arbitrators on-wiki and off-wiki with false claims that privacy issues are involved" (emphasis mine).
-Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Professor marginalia
Mathsci should not be sanctioned for pursuing socks in R/I
This is a badly worded question but we should be grateful for any help Mathsci's willing to give on this problem. I don't understand the relevance with Mikemikev to this dispute between Ferahgo and Mathsci. (Nor, for that matter, Yfever, who Ferahgo has mentioned twice, incorrectly, in pursing this interaction ban against Mathsci. Yfever could not have found the userfy from FT2's post. FT2 wrote it weeks after Yfever used it.) But Mikemikev alone has used over a hundred puppets. There were at least these other China and Australian IPs he used: 124.115.214.202, 144.140.52.51, 166.111.120.63, 219.153.49.173, 220.181.28.175, 61.145.61.108, 61.152.91.225. Those used to edit under user accounts he created aren't shared with other users.Professor marginalia (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.