Initiated by MapSGV at 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525

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

• MapSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Information about amendment request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MapSGV&diff=828410043&oldid=828409525

• Consider the block and topic ban as invalid; removal of topic ban.

Statement by MapSGV

I have spent some time evaluating policies and practices. Given the many problems with the sanction, I am finding that this sanction should be appealed.

Sandstein first blocked me indefinitely and then unblocked and topic banned me from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan by finding sense in a frivolous report filed by a ban evading sock[2] who was already going under an SPI investigation[3] for being a suspected sock of an editor who is himself indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan.[4] It was also clear the the user was going to end up getting blocked per

Clearly, Sandstein shouldn't have relied upon report filed by this sock without identifying the motives and background first.

In place of removing that report per

Analysis of diffs reported in ARE by sock.

diff 1: User was a sock, who was earlier calling me a sock without evidence.[10][11] No violation. diff 2: same as above. No violation. diff 3: same as above and when the user is misrepresent sources you would obviously see it as agenda. There is nothing wrong with using the word "agenda". There was recently an ANI thread with this title "Political agenda editor", "INDICATOR2018"_(II) and no one questioned the OP. No violation. diff 4: outdated diff from 20 February. No "personal attack" involved, although next editor had falsely claimed the reliable sources to be " WP:FAKE"[12] which is clearly sanctionable. No violation. diff 5: outdated diff from 20 February. Though there was some incivility but I was not the one to start but next editor who was continiously making personal attacks[13] even after I told him to "focus on content".[14] No violation. diff 6: outdated diff from 20 February. The message made in response to a false off-topic accusation[15], so that editor can talk about the content. No violation. diff 7: outdated diff from 20 February. Clearly no violation here. diff 8: outdated diff from 20 February. It was response to a problematic comment that read "I see is a concerted effort to push WP:RS , I was a little but blunt, but I had soon realized I had to be better. But still, no violation. diff 9: outdated diff from 21 February. It was a response to "replaced by the horrible POV and OR edit",[17] despite it was correctly sourced.[18] No violation. diff 10: outdated diff from 21 February. It was made in response to personal attacks (and misleading accusations of being SPA) by other user that read "time you drop your POV stick, because an SPA whose first edits involve adding contentious OR and POV".[19] Though incivil, but both sides, but no actual violation from me. diff 11: outdated diff from 21 February. Made in response to frequent personal attacks and false accusations such as "''You are not only a POV warrior, but an [[WP:SPA]] whose only purpose is to cause disruption. And you are definitely [[WP:SOCK|not a new user]]'"[20]. Since I have edited subjects about multiple continents in last 4 years and yet I was seeing an years old editor making frequent false allegations of socking and being SPA. As usual, no violation. diff 12: removal of what Wikipedia is not, recently added by an editor with unusual edit summary.[21] No violation. diff 13: same as above, and this time removal of misrepresentation of source too. Where did the source was "10.2 million" or "recording a growth of 15.9%"? Source said "10 million" and 12%.[22] (though 12.49 should be corrected to 12.36 and I didn't got chance following these sanctions) No violation. diff 14: when next user provides you self-published, unreliable, outdated sources for making claims as though the problem is prevailing, you happen to let them know why the article has been rid of such information to this day and we need better sources, WP:RS , for inclusion. No violation. diff 15: per WP:DENY, I removed RfC tag of the RfC started by this obvious sock after the seeing the convincing SPI where I was pinged. No violation. diff 16 same as above. diff 17 same as above. diff 18 not even under scope of Arbitration sanctions and otherwise no violation.

I responded to Sandstein,[23][24] highlighting both sides and the credibility of this report. Sandstein made a response and closed the report in just 16 hours[25] and blocked me indefinitely by making disparaging remarks about me in his comment,[26] and also making contrary claims like " rather than convince us that it will not reoccur", despite he never even asked, and "incivility by others is no excuse for incivility of one's own", however, when a user is reported to

, conduct of all parties is observed so it is necessary to highlight conduct of others when allegations have been made against you.

In short words, there was not even a single diff for which I could be sanctioned. Anyone can misrepresent more than a dozen of diffs about any user but admin's work is to properly judge them and Sandstein failed there. If the user was not a sock then still, Sandstein had to remind all involved parties of the dispute about relevant policies of conduct than singling me out and blocking me in violation of blocking policy. Since I had no earlier sanctions or blocks, he had to leave a note per

]

Sandstein you are still misrepresenting me and my edits to justify your unwarranted actions.

18 diffs do not make "10%" of "223". None of the diffs involved any violation. Are you saying that if I had 1000 edits then you wouldnt be sanctioning? Which policy says that higher edit count can save you from getting sanctioned? Many of my edits have nothing to do with this subject[27][28][29][30] hence I am not SPA but you are falsely claiming me to be. You seem to be asserting that users can be topic banned from whole India, Pakistan and Afghanistan but not any one of them, which is also wrong.

]

Newyorkbrad, Sandstein never gave me a single warning and indeffed me right away. I never had a warning from any other admin or user either. MapSGV (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein,

]

@

]

@

WP:NOPOV

and none of my edits contradict any of the points mentioned there.

By reading the discussion on talk page, you must have also seen one editor frequently calling verifiable references a

fake,[39][40] and one other editor frequently making personal attacks[41] on multiple editors, falsely accusing of socking, putting his personal opinion over reliable sources. If these users were not sanctioned for their much worse conduct despite past blocks concerning same subject, then there is no way I have to be singled out, and Sandstein had the opportunity to look into this, he had to see the root of the problem and also see that who was being undoubtedly offensive and disruptive, but Sandstein didn't. That's why the "personal attacks" that you are referring, they were not one-sided, nor I am the one to start them and instead I tried to avoid them[42]

despite I was being attacked. The diffs from Siachen conflict also seemed outdated, no action had to be taken. Rest of the reported diffs involved a ban evading disruptive sock who was harassing, edit warring, misrepresenting sources and violating copyrights.

Except these important reasons, sanctions are unwarranted also because I never even had a prior warning. All of this has been already clarified by other arbitrators. – MapSGV (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive227#MapSGV I outlined my reasons for what was initially a non-AE indef block and which I later changed to a topic ban. Specifically, MapSGV had then made only 223 edits, and of these, some 10% had been problematic as reported in the AE thread. This is not an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, especially in a high-tension topic area subject to discretionary sanctions. I concluded then that MapSGV's contribution to this topic area is not a net benefit to Wikipedia.

What is being submitted here on appeal does not make me change this view. The discourse about supposed socking by others is beside the point because the conduct of others is not relevant to sanctions imposed on MapSGV; see

. The comments on the individual diffs are also immaterial, because it is the number of problematic or at least questionable edits by MapSGV, in proportion to their other editing, that made me impose the sanction, and not the particulars of any one of these edits. Afghanistan is included in the topic ban because it is part of the real-world conflicts affecting the topic area.

Moreover, the fact that MapSGV has not made any edits unrelated to the sanction since being sanctioned 18 days ago indicates that they are not interested in productive editing outside of issues related to the conflicts in India and Pakistan. We do not need more

dedicated to ethno-nationalist conflicts.

I therefore recommend that this appeal be declined. Sandstein 17:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad: The conduct at issue was mainly about Siachen conflict, a conflict between India and Pakistan. I suppose one could omit Afghanistan from the ban, but a frequent practice at AE is to make the scope of topic bans correspond to the DS topic area to avoid issues of boundary-testing, gaming, etc. Sandstein 19:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: You ask me to comment on whether "the block is no longer preventative". The block has already been lifted. What is being contested here, insofar as I understand it, is the subsequent topic ban. In my view, MapSGV's edits linked to in the AE request indicate that they would not be a net benefit to Wikipedia if they were to continue to contribute to articles related to India-Pakistan conflicts. I would therefore prefer to maintain the topic ban until MapSGV has demonstrated substantial productive editing in other topic areas, but would be open to restricting its scope further if MapSGV intends to edit uncontroversial India- or Pakistan-related articles. Sandstein 15:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: In response to your question on my talk page, I have taken note of the comments made so far but do not have anything to add to what I wrote above. Sandstein 15:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lorstaking

@Mkdw: Most of the diffs concerned a ban evading sock who was on verge of getting blocked, hence the credibility is not just limited with reporting but the evidence itself. SPI showed that the sock was Wikihounding every page that had been edited by MapSGV,[43] and had the tendency of Wikihounding other editors and then calling them a sock for justifying his harassment and he was calling MapSGV a sock as well.[44]

As for other diffs, anyone can point out a number of diffs about just anyone from a heated content dispute where a couple of editors are engaging in

. If other users are allowed to scot-free for their egregious personal attacks and long term pattern of problematic editing, then MapSGV should not be singled out just for trivial civility issues.

Later on, MapSGV had interactions on AfD of Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan, where the AfD result ended up supporting MapSGV's opinion and not his opponents. Here, MapSGV was again attacked by the same user[49] but MapSGV remained civil.[50]

describes how to make judgement on incivility and MapSGV couldn't be sanctioned in this regard if we go by the policy and standards.

Again, I have also never seen anyone getting sanctioned like MapSGV has been and without even a single warning. That's why this topic ban as well as the block lacks any merit and contradicts the policies and standards. Lorstaking (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4

Blocking and then topic banning a well-meaning editor over small civility issues (that weren't one sided) without even a prior warning and solely relying on report lodged by disruptive ban evading sock is objectionable and also out of process. Sandstein should've considered making a discussion with MapSGV first and had to make similar discussion with other involved users that engaged in incivility.

Most editors agree with MapSGV's contributions to Siachen conflict, because they were important and his edits brought back focus on result of the battle, which is also emphasized by scholars and academics. MapSGV's edits contradicted the long term POV version that was pushed by FreeatlastChitchat,[51] and MapSGV became target of FreeatlastChitchat who would abuse his sock to harass MapSGV and then file an AE report after failing to get his POV on articles. Since incivility is judged after reviewing entire incident and MapSGV was clearly provoked by others who made false accusations against him, there was no way he had to be singled out while leaving others. The AfD pointed out above is a good example, where MapSGV was again attacked but he was civil.[52] FreeatlastChitchat always had a tendency of filing frivolous complaints and he had done same with me with his main account.[53] Talk:Roti#RfC about the origin of the roti also ended up supporting MapSGV's opinion, hence MapSGV should be allowed to edit this subject since he happens to be correct with his edits, unlike those who engage in disruption to right great wrongs.

In all fairness, Sandstein is clearly incorrect and his failure to understand the errors with his actions is concerning. This is not happening for the first time but just another time, despite issues have been raised before about his mishandling of AE reports,[54][55][56] and given Sandstein's disappointing responses here, I am inclined to think that Sandstein's mishandling of AE reports is going to create problems in future. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

Although I disagree with this sanction in the sense that it's not what I would have done, I think it was within administrator discretion and would be unlikely to be overturned on appeal at AE (I would certainly opine that way in an appeal there). I still think it would have been better to let the SPI play out before taking action on this request, because although it is true that we expect editors to behave calmly and civilly even with socks of disruptive editors, and the fact they were responding to disruption does not excuse or give them license for being disruptive themselves, it should IMO be taken as a mitigating circumstance when deciding a sanction for that disruption. To do otherwise is to be seen to be enabling harassment. I would therefore urge Sandstein to commute this to time served plus a warning not to respond to disruption in kind. GoldenRing (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

DS appeal by MapSGV: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse see above. GoldenRing (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS appeal by MapSGV: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I am reviewing this appeal, bearing in mind the discretion accorded to administrators in AE/DS areas. As I read the history, however, the sanction against MapSGV was based primarily on incivility and allegations (at least some of which proved correct) that other editors were socking. As the sanctioning administrator, Sandstein, himself recognized while unblocking MapSGV, the editor has agreed to improve his level of civility. I see no prior warnings and there is no prior block history, and the sanction does not seem to have been based on substantively improper content editing. A lengthy topic-ban based primarily on first-offense civility concerns strikes me as an unusually severe sanction. ¶ In addition, I note that while Sandstein has expressed concern above about MapSGV's editing on "the conflicts in India and Pakistan" and about MapSGV's failure to edit on other subjects since being sanctioned, the scope of the topic-ban goes well beyond "the conflicts in India and Pakistan." Rather, the topic-ban specifically bars MapSGV from any editing about "everything related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan." (Emphasis added.) That scope goes far, far beyond a topic-ban from editing about conflicts between India and Pakistan. (The equivalent in scope might be my being topic-banned from "everything related to the United States," or Sandstein's being topic-banned from "everything related to Europe.") I would ask Sandstein to comment on whether, even assuming a topic-ban is otherwise warranted, the one imposed is overbroad in scope to the extent indicated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've belatedly modified the title of this request, for clarity. I invite Sandstein to provide any further input in light of the comments added since he last posted to this page. As a general response to another arbitrator's comment, a decision to overturn a particular discretionary sanction is not a "rebuke" of the administrator who issued it, but merely a disagreement with a particular judgment call. Admins are not expected to take things personally when there's a consensus on ANI to lift a block or on DRV to restore a deletion, and this situation shouldn't be any different. On the procedural issues, please note the current discussion on the motions subpage; I hope editors with thoughts on the proposed motion, particularly admins active on AE, will comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the discussion seems to have come to rest, and Sandstein has indicated he has no further comments, I've proposed motions below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I consider the issue with the block and its duration to have already been addressed; MapSGV was blocked, concerns were primarily raised about the duration (not about the validity), and the block was changed by the blocking admin. Any remaining complaints about administrative misconduct should be deferred back to the community at the appropriate venue. If the community is unable to reach a consensus to address the issue, it may be continued in the form of a case request to ArbCom, although, I expect the community deems this aspect already resolved.

In regards to AE/DS, the primary basis of MapSGV's request relies on two arguments: the filing was done by a disruptive party and the diffs used should be deemed "stale". It is not uncommon at AE, ArbCom case, and AN/ANI requests, to continue to be reviewed by administrators or the Arbitration Committee if there are merits to the request. The Arthur Rubin case as a recent example. As for whether the evidence submitted to AE is inadmissible, the operative word "may" in the instructions means possibility, not absolute requirement. Using such a technicality to argue "there was not even a single diff for which I could be sanctioned", when it comes to personal attacks and disruptive editing, is not reasonably going to extricate the party from sanctions. I see a troubling pattern of behaviour where MapSGV fails to acknowledge their part in the dispute with comments such as "... I am confident that I was blocked for no reason", despite a lengthy list of personal attacks listed at AE. The topic ban expires after 6 months of problem-free editing. I welcome other comments from the community, but I am inclined to uphold the sanction. Mkdw ^talk 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think the sanction probably shouldn't have been imposed. A block was imposed, and the editor promised to correct their behavior. That's usually the time where we let them show us they will correct their behavior or won't, after which we can act accordingly. This is especially relevant where most of the problematic behavior was directed at a now-blocked sock. To be clear, the block does not excuse incivility, but if most of the behavioral problems centered around a now-removed editor, it's very possible that continued sanctions are not preventative. Having said all that, I see nothing here that makes me think this goes beyond something that can/should be handled by the community. I think ArbCom's role in appeals should be as a final venue to correct gross misuses of administrator discretion. While I may not agree with this particular sanction, I don't think it's indefensible. There was disruptive behavior here, and an admin made a difficult decision in a difficult area. Without taking a negative stance on his use of discretion here, I would ask Sandstein to read this and reflect on whether there's a good chance the block is no longer preventative because the locus of it has been blocked. If he were willing to reduce or remove the sanction, I think that would be best, especially if he was willing to keep an eye out on new activity after the easing of sanctions to see if they should be replaced. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: Sorry, I meant the topic ban; typed my comment relatively quickly due to an engagement I had to get to. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I had hoped not to address this as a Committee, but accept. Yes, the behavior wasn't good. Personal attacks are not okay, though it's worth noting that they were directed at a sock who was rather clearly goading him. The editor received zero warnings followed by an indefinite block. That block was clearly disproportional and has already been lifted by the blocking admin, but it was replaced by an indefinite topic ban that is itself rather dubious. It is the burden of the sanctioning admin to show their sanction is preventative, and with zero warnings prior to the sanction and zero chances for the editor to change their behavior, that burden can't be met here. I would like to remind Sandstein that, while arbitration enforcement is unique in many ways, it's not unique in the sense that editors should generally be given a chance to correct their behavior before being sanctioned for it. There are some exceptions for short-term sanctions needed to put an immediate stop to active disruption (e.g. a 31-hour 1RR violation block, if edit-warring is ongoing), but long-term sanctions should almost always occur only after at least one warning that the specific problematic behavior needs to change. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• While there's nothing wrong with bringing this here, it probably could have been more efficiently handled by appealing directly at AE. (Arbs are slowpokes, after all.) The disputed block has already been undone, so I gather this is intended as an appeal of the topic ban. Now, I don't like that decision at all; it's much too heavy-handed for my taste, and made worse by the fact that the original complainant was a sock. MapSGV has not responded very gracefully to this outcome, but that's common and unsurprising when someone feels that a member of the community with more 'power' has treated them poorly. All that said, I do think this decision was broadly within administrative discretion; "not to Opabinia's taste" isn't a violation of anything. I think this would be better off overturned, but as a gesture of good faith, not as some kind of rebuke on anyone involved. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with OR. I don't think the topic ban was necessary although I understand why it was placed. I too think it would be better overturned, or at the very least, reduced in scope to cover only the India-Pakistan conflict rather than everything about India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as NYB suggested. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to concur with some of my fellow arbs here. The topic ban I feel was a bit on the heavy handed side, and should be at the most reduced to cover the I/P conflict, if not removed all together. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• MapSGV, here is not the venue to re-visit specific details of a content dispute. I have been reading through Talk:Siachen_conflict#Recent_Edits, and my conclusion is that sometimes it is not about the perspective you present, but how you present that perspective. Reading through this particular discussion, I see several instances of personal attacks that makes it difficult to revoke the topic ban, regretfully. Alex Shih (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS appeal by MapSGV: Motions

Motion 1

The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained, and the topic-ban imposed on MapSGV on March 2, 2018 is lifted. MapSGV remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Enacted - Miniapolis 17:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Per discussion above. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Let's give this a try. Of course, granting this appeal does not mean similar sanctions can't be re-imposed if there are further problems. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. only choice. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Neither option offers the option to reduce the sanction duration as indicated by several Arbs as one possibility. In that absence, I prefer Motion 2. Mkdw ^talk 04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. Alex Shih (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion by arbitrators

Community comments

Motion 2

The discretionary sanctions appeal by MapSGV is sustained to the extent that the topic-ban imposed on March 2, 2018 is modified to provide, "MapSGV is topic-banned from editing regarding conflicts between India and Pakistan until September 2, 2018." MapSGV may edit regarding other topics involving India, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, but remains on notice that the India/Pakistan topic-area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and is reminded to edit in accordance with all applicable policies.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

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

Support

1. Per discussion above. Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice. It can't harm the encyclopedia for the topic ban to continue and allows MapSGV plenty of articles to edit.Doug Weller talk 14:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. I disagree with some of the justifications for this topic ban, but for a contentious area like conflicts between India and Pakistan, MapSGV certainly edits with stronger than desired POV; the modification looks fine to me. I have a feeling that first motion will pass, and ideally I would like to support both; although if I was to make a choice, I would prefer to make a weak support for this motion instead. Alex Shih (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mkdw ^talk 04:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
3. Too elaborate DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Discussion by arbitrators

Community comments

---

Initiated by Captain Occam at 09:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

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

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

• Captain Occam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ferahgo the Assassin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [57]

Statement by Captain Occam

I was advised by a member of ArbCom to ask about this here, so I may as well give it a shot.

In a current AE thread, admins are reaching a consensus that I have violated my topic ban from articles related to race and intelligence by discussing them over e-mail, and by editing in the topic of human intelligence and psychometrics in general. The question of whether topic bans extend to e-mail is currently being discussed in a RFC, but I would like ArbCom to address the second question, regarding the exact scope of my topic ban. I've included user:Ferahgo_the_Assassin as a party because she is under a topic ban identical to mine, so whatever decision ArbCom makes about the scope of my topic ban presumably applies to the scope of hers also.

The edits I've made that are being considered topic ban violations are this edit to the Oliver James article, and my former participation in the

as covering "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". I had assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the discretionary sanctions, and that it therefore covered only articles about psychological traits in relation to race. Psychometrics (including in relation to genetics) is a far vaster field than the small subset of this research that deals with group differences, so this difference between the two possible interpretations of my topic ban is not trivial.

I recognize that whether these edits were within the scope of my topic ban or not, it was unwise for me to get involved in a topic so close to the area of my topic ban, or to engage in a behavior that looked similar to canvassing. For 14 of the 15 months since my site-ban was lifted, I've avoided editing anything related to human intelligence, but my attention was recently attracted back to that topic because of a discussion about it at Wikipediocracy, and also an article I recently was invited to write about the topic for an unrelated website. Regardless of the outcome of the AE thread, from now on I intend to avoid the topic of human intelligence and psychometrics entirely for as long as my topic ban remains in effect. However, I think it's important for ArbCom to clarify the scope of my topic ban for the purpose of that AE thread, because this affects the question of how harshly I deserve to be sanctioned there.

Does the scope of topic bans from the race and intelligence arbitration case apply to the same set of articles that are covered by discretionary sanctions (articles that discuss both race and psychological traits), or does it have a broader scope (race or psychological traits)? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

@Sandstein: My intention with this proposal isn't to evade the possibility of being sanctioned, and if you're concerned it might have that affect, I have a suggestion about how to make sure it doesn't. Based on the discussion thus far in the AE thread, I think it's clear that at a minimum, I'm going to receive a month-long arbitration enforcement block for having violated my topic ban by discussing R&I articles over e-mail. I would accept it for you to close the AE thread with a month-long block for me, as long as I'm able to continue participating in this clarification request via my user talk. If ArbCom determines that I've engaged in additional violations of my topic ban and that I deserve an indef block, the indef block would be a non-AE action, so it could be done after the AE thread has been closed.

I'm obviously reluctant to advocate a block for myself, but I'm proposing this because it's very important to me that others not assume bad faith about this request for clarification. Please let me know if you'd accept the solution I'm proposing. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: As I said in response to your e-mail, that's what I'm intending to do after this issue is over with, the same as I was doing from the time when my ArbCom lifted my site-ban until a few weeks ago. But it's a bit difficult to be motivated for that at a time when I know that any edits I make are about to get cut short by a block, and possibly an indef one. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: There is something I think it's very important to clarify here. Aside from my recent e-mail to Beyond my Ken, my contacting of other editors via e-mail has been specifically about the psychometrics task force, not about the race and intelligence topic. Influencing editors in the R&I topic via e-mail is something that I used to do, and I mentioned this to ArbCom when I appealed my ban to them in December 2016, but it isn't something I've been doing in the time since my ban was lifted. Aside from my e-mail to Beyond my Ken, I have only sent one other e-mail to a Wikipedia user in the past year that directly concerned the race and intelligence topic. It was an e-mail to Everymorning in which I made a general suggestion that he pay attention to that article, during a lengthy correspondence about the task force that was mostly unrelated to race and intelligence. That e-mail was sent directly to his e-mail address, not through the Wikipedia e-mail feature.

I'm willing to provide the e-mails that are coming under scrutiny here, so that you and other admins can see that what I'm saying about them is correct.

Now, I know that the psychometrics task force might possibly be covered by my topic ban also, so that e-mailing other users about that could be considered a topic ban violation, but this wasn't something that I had been aware of. You and the other AE admins are basing your decision on the assumption that I presently have a pattern of deliberately circumventing my topic ban with the e-mail function, and that isn't the case. I would like the AE decision about me to be based on the reality of the situation, and not based on an incorrect assumption. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The e-mails

@GoldenRing: Actually, since I could potentially be indeffed at any moment, I guess I'll go ahead and do what I was offering to do. Aside from Everymorning and Beyond my Ken, I have only e-mailed two Wikipedia users in in the past year in relation to anything related to human intelligence. One was my e-mail to Rvcx that he mentioned in the AE thread. It was sent directly to his e-mail address, not through the Wikipedia e-mail feature. The content of the e-mail was as follows:

Dear (name redacted),

I'm no longer banned from Wikipedia, and I'm helping a few other editors create a psychometrics task force in the psychology wikiproject to help improve Wikipedia's articles related to personality and intelligence. The task force is mostly set up at this point, so now we're contacting other people who might be interested in participating.

There isn't any specific article or editor I'm wanting you to pay attention to now; I just thought you might like to participate in that task force in general. Are you interested?

--(name redacted) / Captain Occam

The other e-mail that I sent was to user:BlackHades. This, too, was sent directly to his e-mail address, not through the Wikipedia e-mail feature.

Hi Blackhades,

Remember me? I'm wondering if you're still interested in editing Wikipedia. If you are, there's something going on there that I think you might like to participate in.

Just in case people are inclined to assume bad faith about what I meant, the "something going on" that I mentioned is the psychometrics task force. Like my e-mail to Rvcx, this e-mail did not discuss any of the articles from which I'm topic banned.

The reason I chose to send these messages via e-mail, instead of posting them on-wiki, was not because there was anything in them either of that I thought was worth hiding. It was because both editors had been inactive for a few years, and I thought that if I posted in their user talk they might not notice it.

This situation demonstrates one of the downsides of trying to enforce a topic ban over e-mail actions. Since none of you had actually seen the e-mails involved, it was easy for you to assume I was sending dozens of them and that they were a deliberate attempt to influence edits on articles from which I'm topic banned. I expect that even now that I've posted these, I'll most likely get indeffed anyway, but I hope other people reviewing this situation can recognize what was problematic about sanctioning me based on your assumptions about evidence that you weren't able to see. --Captain Occam (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

Statement by Sandstein

I am one of the admins who have commented on the currently open

]

Statement by EdChem

CO notes that the discretionary sanctions from the race and intelligence arbitration case are defined as covering "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed." However, I don't think the follow-on claim that he had assumed that the scope of my topic ban was the same as the scope of the discretionary sanction is much of an excuse when the unban conditions were very clear:

The scope of his 2010 topic ban is modified from "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" to "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed".

and this was explicitly posted on his user talk page upon unbanning by Opabinia regalis. About 10 hours later, the notification posted onto his user talk page again by an ArbCom clerk, who then removed the duplication and uncollapsed OR's original post so that this is how his user talk page appeared. CO then archived the talk page and the notification is still present in archive 7 of his user talk page. Maybe CO forgot the terms of his unbanning. Maybe he did make an assumption of what the scope of his ban was. But, in either case, he received the notification – which was presumably also covered in off-wiki discussions of his site ban appeal with ArbCom – and if he truly believed that interfering even at the edges of the area of the case and topic ban was within the bounds of acceptable behaviour following his long site ban, then he deserves the sanction that must follow.

I have posted at AE on a subject related to the one Sandstein raises. If comments from BMK are to be believed, CO emailed to comment on edits in the R&I area, which certainly should be prohibited by the terms of his ban. If it is not covered by the letter of the rules, ArbCom should look at closing this hole in all of its topic bans. Even if it is not, however, the spirit of a topic ban after an ArbCom case and years of site banning must cover such actions. I think the following is appropriate:

• If ArbCom wants to take this situation on, BMK should be approached to provide the email directly to ArbCom for evaluation.
• ArbCom would then be in a position to decide whether the emails are sanctionable, and to also take on the diffs from the AE of alleged topic ban violation.
• Under this approach, I recommend ArbCom calling up the situation for determination and closing the AE. ArbCom has the authority to apply a block of longer than a month, or craft another response that seems warranted (including modifying the scope of the topic ban, if necessary), or even re-instituting the site ban.
• Alternatively, if ArbCom does not want to take over the situation, consideration should be given to closing the AE and moving to AN for a decision by the community. I agree with Sandstein that the authority of AE extends only to a block of one month, and I am not convinced that the options available at AE should be the only ones available. The community at AN could issue a ban, or impose another sanction, and a no consensus conclusion would not necessarily preclude an AE action from an administrator. The AE could be closed, for example, noting that a consensus of AE administrators is a one month block which is suspended for an AN discussion (allowing CO to participate) and that the block will be imposed at the end of the AN discussion unless the community reaches consensus to substitute some other action.
• If a change of venue is considered, I wonder whether Captain Occam would express a view on it being taken to AN or taken over by ArbCom at ARCA or left at AE, if it were up to him to choose?

EdChem (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing

I think it is worth noting that BMK has said that the original email from Captain Occam was not in itself particularly offensive, except that it dealt largely with a topic from which CO is banned, but that at the same time other users have come forward on the AE request to report similar email experiences with OC. This is a pattern of attempting to influence the R&I topic through email lobbying.

Such emails are not, on my reading, currently covered by topic bans; but it is looking likely (see the current state of the RFC CO links above) that policy will be amended to explicitly include use of Wikipedia email in the scope of bans. At the very least, the committee should wait and see what the outcome of the RFC is; if it clarifies policy either way then there is nothing for arbcom to do here.

As for this incident, it is looking likely that the AE will close with Captain Occam being indeffed as a normal admin action for disruption / NOTHERE. If that is the outcome, there is a lot of ground to cover between there and an appeal to the committee. GoldenRing (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

The point of broad topic bans is to keep the editor away as far as possible from the topic. As it is clear Occam isnt interested in obeying the spirit of the ban from the topic, and you cannot monitor what he sends via the email this user feature, just disable his email access, reiterate the topic ban covers anything related to race & intelligence and let the AE action take its course. If he wants to pursue his R&I crusade offwiki, make it so he does it off-wiki. But he will keep doing it, as anyone with half a brain knew he was going to when he was unblocked. It really doesnt matter what restrictions you place, he will continute to try and further his agenda. All you are really doing is pushing the problem elsewhere. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TonyBallioni

Just noting for the committee that I closed the AE thread as an indefinite block as a regular admin action (not AE) per the emerging consensus there, and disabled access to email. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

It seems to me that by opening this ARCA, Captain Occam has given his tacit permission for the text of his first e-mail to me to be shared with the Committee if they decide to take this on. If I am correct in this assumption, I have no objection to this, and will forward it to the Commmittee in whatever way they desire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do have some questions which, if the Committee decides to deal with this Clarification, may or may not be pertinent: If Captain Occam didn't think that putting together a task force to patrol articles relating to psychometics wasn't a potential violation of his topic ban, and if the purpose of the task force was innocuous -- i.e. not to push a hereditarian POV, but simply to put articles into good order -- why was there a need to contact editors via e-mail? Why the secrecy? Why not simply post the invitation on their user talk pages? Was Captain Occam afraid that doing so would reveal that he was inviting only editors of a certain POV, or that a public invitation would attract the "wrong" kind of editor to the task force? Or was he concerned that such a public invitation would reveal that he was intending to delve into a subject matter very closely related to "race and intelligence", and that someone might raise questions about that, so he wanted to get the task force set up and running before that happened? Again, why the need for screcy? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse due to involvement at AE. GoldenRing (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Mildly, the full advice from a member of Arbcom (me) was that while you could post this request here, it would probably be better not to, and instead to go edit some of the five million other en-WP articles on totally unrelated topics like fish, or joinery, or medieval art. Still reckon that's good advice, this arca request notwithstanding. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: other views welcome, but I don't personally see a reason to delay the closing of the AE thread if it's otherwise time to do so. This arca can be resolved independently of the AE outcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Euryalus on both accounts, noting that if we make a clarification that makes clear the editor did not violate their topic ban, they can always appeal at AE noting the new information. As far as the substance of the request, it seems clear that this is a topic ban of "race and intelligence", meaning the article must contain information about both aspects to be included under the scope. It seems unlikely the Committee intended to separately topic ban the editor from both race and (separately) intelligence. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Captain Occam has been indefinitely blocked at AE. Please see Special:Permalink/834221440#Captain_Occam. Mkdw ^talk 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This request is moot as long as Captain Occam remains blocked. (I haven't reviewed the block.) If he is ever unblocked, he has indicated he will stay away from the areas at issue, which is a good idea, and so the request will still be moot. Under the circumstances I don't think we need to spend time on this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• With Captain Occam's indef block, I do not see any reason for the committee to look into this issue at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Nyb. Captain Occam's blocked, he says he'll stay away from the areas, so we're finished. Doug Weller talk 15:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Moot given the block per above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---