Requests for amendment

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) at 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Mathsci topic-banned by mutual consent

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

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

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

[1] [2]

Amendment 1

• That Mathsci is banned from interacting with or mentioning me and Captain Occam anywhere on Wikipedia.

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

Despite my having had no interaction with him in many months, Mathsci (talk · contribs) is continuing to bring me up on Wikipedia in inappropriate situations after being asked multiple times by arbitrators to stop. Arbcom has requested that Mathsci drop this issue at least four times:

• [3] February, Roger Davies asked him to leave it to uninvolved editors to bring it up if someone's editing in R&I is a problem.
• [4] April, Risker told him clearly to disengage.
• [5] [6] September, Roger Davies and Cool Hand Luke both told him to disengage. From my understanding, the only reason he wasn't given an interaction ban is because the arbitrators were confident he would follow their advice. [7]
• [8] And finally, two weeks ago he was formally warned by Jclemens to stop bringing up off-wiki evidence against other editors.

But Mathsci has been continuing to do this exact thing the entire time, and in fact it seems like the quantity of examples is steadily increasing. Keep in mind these are only diffs from after the amendment thread in September when he was told by two arbitrators to stop. There are many diffs of this kind of behavior from before September, but those were addressed in the previous amendment thread.

• [9] October: Mathsci inserts himself into a discussion that has nothing to do with him in order to bring me up (including the irrelevant details of my relationship).
• [10] November: Mathsci brings this up again (along with the R&I case) in another discussion that has nothing to do with him in order to attack arbitrator Jclemens.
• [11] [12] [13] November & December: Mathsci attempts to prove Boothello (talk · contribs) is a sock of David.Kane (talk · contribs), based on off-wiki research about where David.Kane lives, another example of Mathsci conducting off-wiki sleuthing about editors connected to R&I.
• [14] December: Mathsci inserts himself into another discussion that doesn't involve him in order to push for sanctions against Occam.
• [15] December: Mathsci again bringing up Occam out of the blue.
• [16] [17] [18] January, the most recent occurrence: This time it was to threaten an editor for what looks like a very brief involvement in editing the human intelligence template. Here Mathsci is making real-life, off-wiki claims about me in an attempt to threaten TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs) as well as me with sanctions, including threatening us "all" with a community ban. (???)

This recent example is the exact thing that Jclemens told Mathsci to stop doing, and here he's done it around two weeks after being told that. Over the past few months, Mathsci has continued to demonstrate an increasing fixation on R&I, myself, Occam, and off-wiki research about editors connected to R&I. I have attempted to make an agreement with Mathsci to stop doing this: that he leaves me alone entirely (and completely stops mentioning me and Occam on Wikipedia), and I'll return the favor. In his last comment on TrevelyanL85A2's talk, he has rejected that request. Unfortunately, I think at this point the only long-term solution here is an official sanction administered by Arbcom that prohibits Mathsci from mentioning me anywhere on Wikipedia. It can be mutual or one-sided at Arbcom's discretion. Although Occam is currently blocked, I think it's important for the interaction ban to cover both of us. Mathsci tends to bring us up both in the same context, and I don't want to leave room for gaming by requesting an interaction ban only for myself.

As an aside, I should point out that last time this happened, Coren suggested the issue go to RFC. However, my current topic ban (as per share policy with Occam's IP) prohibits me from starting an RFC about anything connected to R&I. Additionally, the best outcome from an RFC would be that the community requests Mathsci to drop this issue. If Mathsci won't heed Arbcom's advice multiple times, I don't see what it would accomplish for the community to tell him the same thing.

I think it is important that this issue is finally put to bed. He has been told by Arbcom to drop this four times. I don't think a fifth request would accomplish anything at this point if it is not accompanied by an interaction ban. In September, Cool Hand Luke decided against the requested interaction ban because he was confident Mathsci would follow his instructions to drop the issue. Mathsci has not done so. This seems relevant to the vested contributors issue: Mathsci has made a lot of useful contributions to the encyclopedia, but that should not justify repeated second chances to follow Arbcom's advice every time he ignores it.

Additionally I think that history has shown that this kind of behavior, if left unchecked, can drive experienced contributors away from Wikipedia or provoke them into acting in unacceptable ways. I really don't want this to progress that far in my case: I enjoy contributing my artwork and knowledge to Wikipedia, and Mathsci's behavior regarding me makes me very uncomfortable. Because of the harm behavior like this can do to the project in the long term, I think it's important for Arbcom to stop it before it progresses that far.

New examples

• While this thread is open, Mathsci is currently removing comments by another editor from my user talk. [19] [20] He suspects them of being a sock, but either way I've asked him multiple times to stay off my talk page, and Mathsci should know this is inappropriate. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC) New example from today: [21] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci is now attempting to get me blocked at AE while this thread is open. [22] -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to arbitrators

Admins at AE have disallowed Occam and myself from participating in RfCs related to the R&I topic area, and also advised us against participating in AE threads related to it. [23] Additionally, when Occam brought this up with Jclemens, he suggested that this issue be raised as an amendment. [24] [25] Even if Arbcom decides that AE or RfC is the best place for this request, I have found that the community is generally not hospitable to my posting anywhere about issues related to R&I. The responses I've received from other involved editors in this thread, and Mathsci's current attempt to get me blocked at AE, are good examples of how the community tends to react to these things. A decision that this issue should be handled by the community instead of Arbcom would only prolong the current conflict, without providing a chance of a resolution. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to others

I will discuss the details regarding TrevelyanL85A2 with full honesty if asked by arbitrators, but I do not think it is appropriate to ask me to divulge off-wiki information about other editors in public. As per WP:OUTING, I shouldn't even confirm or deny these claims. "If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information." I will mention that some of what's being said here is false, but the details can only be discussed with Arbcom if they choose to ask me. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mathsci

Initial response

Captain Occam was site banned by Risker for one year under ArbCom discretionary sanctions for "having returned to the disruptive behaviour and battlefield mentality that was sanctioned in the Race and intelligence arbitration case." My understanding is that, as far as matters related to WP:ARBR&I are concerned, per WP:SHARE, Ferahgo the Assassin's account is considered to be indistinguishable from that of Captain Occam. It would therefore appear that Captain Occam is continuing exactly the same kind of disruption in WP:ARBR&I related issues for which he has just been site banned. It would also appear that he has had this kind of disruption in mind for some time. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] In the circumstances I cannot see how any proposals formulated by Captain Occam can be discussed on wikipedia, no matter who his proxy is or how they seek to justify themselves.

As far as privacy is concerned, both Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2 have chosen to place external links and personally identifying information on wikipedia and/or commons. However, as Shell Kinney has confirmed and has given me permission to repeat on-wiki, a real life association between their accounts can easily be determined without any of that information (or "sleuthing"). Shell Kinney kept the rest of ArbCom informed about this in 2010 and contacted Captain Occam by email, reporting his response here.

Jclemens' request would be reasonable if Ferahgo the Assassin had not included Captain Occam in her proposed amendment and if Captain Occam did not happen to be site banned for one year. There was an almost identical request in early September 2011 by Captain Occam during which he lobbied Jclemens extensively on his talk page (cf diffs above). Please could other arbitrators clarify how WP:SHARE applies in these extraordinary circumstances, where an editor has been site banned and their partner then appears to be continuing the same old campaign as a proxy.

More detailed response

• Outing? I'm not quite sure what Captain Occam and Ferahgo have in mind. As others have said here, to check that Ferahgo and TrevelyanL85A2 are friends does not require any further information. Ferahgo does not appear to be concerned with privacy: she has placed links on her user page to an external website; and she has signed her uploaded images on Commons (contrary to WP:WATERMARK) or added her name to the file descriptions. None of this is relevant here. Similarly on his user page, TrevelyanL85A2 lists many pseudonyms he uses on the web as well as his name. Again that is not relevant here.

• Ferahgo's extended topic ban Ferahgo has framed her own report as if some topic ban was still in force on me. That seems to be the view shared by Captain Occam, Ferahgo the Assassin and their friends. Having only briefly edited as an exercise in the area, it was very easy not to make any further edits there. However, since WP:ARBR&I the set of articles has been plagued with issues of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, so I keep a watch out for problems. Mikemikev has been one of the worst cases. He is a genuine harasser. Here for example is what his latest sock wrote on the SPI page just a day or two ago.[37] He has written much worse than that, but that has been removed by oversighters. Ferahgo the Assassin is subject to the the following extended topic ban:

In this particular instance, since TrevelyanL85A2's talk page is on my watch list, I noticed this edit of Aprock to User talk:TrevelyanL85A2. [38] In that edit Aprock wrote, "I realize you're probably aware of this as you know editors who've been topic banned, but if you're interested in actively editing in the topic area, you might wish to review the WP:ARBR&I case, as well as the amendments to the discretionary sanctions: [39]. Constructive editing is always welcome." I looked at TrevelyanL85A2's edits and noticed that had moved back full swing into editing in R&I. Ther ehad been a similar burst of editing In R&I in November and December 2010, when it had been determined with Shell Kinney that he was a friend of Ferahgo. I gave him a further warning. [40] He responded that that was against some form of ArbCom ban.[41] He then immediately went to the talk page of Ferahgo requesting help. She then appeared on his talk page and in the intervening time of about 10-15 minutes had already compiled a kind of topic ban to present to me.[42] That appears to have been part of a case that Captain Occam had already prepared about me. I assume there had also been off-wiki communication in the interim. However, by responding in this way to TrevelyanL85A2, Ferahgo was in fact violating the terms of her extended topic ban by coming to TrevelyanL85A2's talk page and making statements concerning WP:ARBR&I. She is presumably therefore liable for sanctions under WP:ARBR&I. I have therefore now filed such a request at WP:AE.

• This request for amendment With Captain Occam she then rapidly prepared this request for amendment. The heading is as inaccurate as Captain Occam's 3 September submission, since I am under no ArbCom sanctions. I'm not sure what their purpose is, but one consequence would be that editing in R&I would be easier for sockpuppets or proxies. In general, Captain Occam and Ferahgo seem upset that I have been involved in various AE discussions that have resulted in topic bans. Those requests for enforcement have nothing to do with them.

• Common editing Ferahgo the Assassin has edited mostly articles to do with dinosaurs. At one point however by accident (I watch the BLP noticeboard) we both ended up editing Orson Scott Card, and worked together with others in forming a consensus to produce a neutral but accurate formulation of the lede.

• Grudges Ferahgo's catalogue of grievances is not very different from the list provided by Captain Occam, and presumably they worked on it together. Only on rare occasions do we interact. When interaction occurs it has been initiated by either Captain Occam or, as recently, Ferahgo. On one occasion in 2010 I reported her for violating her topic ban and she was blocked for 3 days. Most of her statements seem exaggerated. All the problems she has had on wikipedia so far are of her own making: trying to act as proxy for Captain Occam and then in turn having her friends act as proxies for them both.

• WP:SHARE The connection between Captain Occam and Ferahgo was determined by a similar process, but was only properly confirmed when a checkuser report had been requested. Many of the statements that Ferahgo has made about me are not reliable and are not very different from the suggestions Captain Occam made repeatedly about me just over a year ago, where he claimed that members of ArbCom were old friends of mine. Those claims had no foundation.

• Echigo mole / A. K. Nole These problems are well known to ArbCom, clerks, checkusers and oversighters who have followed the serial wikistalking / outing issues connected with this problematic user that date back several years. I am surprised that Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin have tried to use this as evidence against me. Arbitrators should take this as another sign that this is an extremely bad faith submission placed by a site-banned user through a compromised proxy. The request is in any case not for a mutual interaction ban. It is that I not mention the names of Captain Occam and his partner anywhere on wikipedia ever again. The last time I mentioned Captain Occam at any length was in the discussion at ANI which in the end led to his site ban (although that was at no stage ever on the cards in the discussion). Is it because of this that Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam have now thrown in the "Echigo mole / A.K.Nole" kitchen sink? AGK kindly protected the WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole because of abusive and trolling edits. Ferhago the Assassin [43] has objected to me removing the personal attacks by the IP socks of Echigo mole / A.K.Nole on her talk page. That request was unreasonable and is a further indication of the bad faith approach she has adopted as a proxy for another banned user, Captain Occam.

• Personal attack by Vecrumba Presumably an ArbCom clerk can remove this.

Statement by Hipocrite

In the interests of transparency, do you know TrevelyanL85A2 outside of Wikipedia? Hipocrite (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having done just the most rudimentary amount of googling, it is quite clear that Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2 have a substantial off-wiki relationship, and that off-wiki relationship is in no way related to race and intelligence.

I don't ask my friends to show up at Wikipedia articles/processes to support me. Captain Occam should learn to do the same. I suggest that TrevelyanL85A2 be subject to the same topic ban that his friends are subject to. Hipocrite (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FtA has now stated that some of what I've said is false. I've made two claims - 1. "it is quite clear that Ferahgo the Assassin and TrevelyanL85A2 have a substantial off-wiki relationship." 2. "that off-wiki relationship is in no way related to race and intelligence."

Which claim is false, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

I didn't pay attention to the Abortion case so I don't know anything about that. But what is the relevance of these two statements of FtA's?:

• November & December: Mathsci attempts to prove Boothello (talk · contribs) is a sock of David.Kane (talk · contribs), based on off-wiki research about where David.Kane lives, another example of Mathsci conducting off-wiki sleuthing about editors connected to R&I.

What does this have to do with Cpt. Occam specifically? It seems like just a complaint that Mathsci is "interfering" with SPAs who push a POV on Race and Intelligence article that was previously supported by Cpt. Occam and FtA. And this is a topic area that has a long history of disruptive SPA and/or sock puppeting. BTW, Boothello WAS topic banned from R&I recently for a mixture of "probable sock puppet of David Kane per duck" and "even if not, being a disruptive tendentious SPA".

• : This time it was to threaten an editor for what looks like a very brief involvement in editing the human intelligence template. Here Mathsci is making real-life, off-wiki claims about me in an attempt to threaten TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs)

Again, what does this have to do with Cpt. Occam and FtA aside from the fact that FtA appears to be annoyed that her off-wiki friends' connections to her and the Captain - i.e. meatpuppets - are pointed out by Mathsci? There'd be no need for any kind of sleuthing if FtA and CO didn't keep recruiting off-wiki buddies in order to what looks like, an intentional circumvention of their topic bans. This wouldn't be that problematic, except that it's FtA who brought this amendment up and cited this for support. Having meat puppets is one thing, requesting that somebody be sanctioned "cuz they pickin' on my meat puppets" is another.

VolunteerMarek 01:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by aprock

Over the last two years, at least four confirmed off-wiki associates of Captain Occam have joined the project to edit in support of him. Given this long history of WP:MEAT it seems counterproductive to restrict discussing him, or his associates, when trying to determine the nature of present disruptions. aprock (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I would urge the committee to take this issue seriously -- not the request for amendment, which is frivolous in that it seeks to amend something which does not exist -- but the issue of Captain Occam and his continuing disruption of Wikipedia through proxies, notably FtA. CO's site ban should be extended to any editor who acts as his meatpuppet. Without such an action, the ban becomes a farce, allowing CO virtual access to the site at will. The project will not suffer from the loss of these editors, who contribute little. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vecrumba

I regret to observe that Mathsci thrives on going into attack mode. When I first became interested in R&I on-Wiki, Mathsci set upon me in no uncertain terms and brought up completely unrelated events in a blatant character assassination attempt. I can go back to provide diffs, this was quite a while ago, but the acrimony exhibited toward me at that time disposes me to believe Mathsci has serious ownership and self-superiority issues that no administrative action will ever solve. When an editor sets upon another, that is not frivolous, and whatever one thinks apart from the attack is immaterial to the attack itself (e.g., the object of the attack is a criminal and deserve what they get). If you ever want WP be a kinder gentler place, start with the attackers not their victims. Whether or not you approve of the victim is not material to the complaint here. If you think it is material, you're part of the self-righteous poison permeating WP. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

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

Statement by an IP editor

• Mathsci has continued his campaign against Ferahgo by repreatedly vandalising her talk page after repeated requests to stay off it. His justification for his edits is that he is either required or entitled to do so because, he claims, he is removing edits by a banned user, User:Echiogo Mole. There seems to be no evidence that Mr Mole is banned, or that he made the edits Mathsci so strenuously objects to. Mathsci has been repeatedly asked to provide this evidence but seems unable to do so. What is the truth of this matter? 94.196.72.148 (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Under the provisions of the final decision (as amended), could this matter not be referred as normal to the Arbitration Enforcement process? It seems to me that the interaction ban, if warranted, could be made as a discretionary sanction. Such a method of proceeding seems to me far preferable to any direct action by this Committee, which by its nature would probably be protracted and unpleasant. AGK [•] 22:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mathsci, I'm not sure your responses here are consistent with WP:SHARE. Would you mind re-responding to the concerns only with respect to Ferahgo? We're not here to re-hear Occam's case, I trust both parties understand. Jclemens (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll be interested to see what others more experienced in this case have to say, though my initial feeling is that concerns about harassment might be better dealt with via RfC. The community can deal with harassment and potential outing matters, blocking if appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} at 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Abortion arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 5.1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• All parties have been notified on their talk page.

Amendment 1

• That the remedy be vacated and replaced with a binding structured community discussion.

Statement by Steven Zhang

It's no coincidence that I am filing this request only just after the start of the new year, that was my intentions, as I wanted the new committee to be able to consider this. I've been discussing it with arbitrator Casliber over the past few weeks (see the discussion). In short, remedy 5.1 would be vacated, and a structured discussion would be opened, similar to the structure suggested in the remedy. The difference here is that it is a community process. Instead of being closed by administrators appointed by the committee, three editors would close the discussion, an admin, someone who has knowledge in the area (for example in this situation, a member from WikiProject Medicine) and a user experienced in dispute resolution. This is somewhat similar to the recent RFC on verifiability in terms of structure. Once the discussion has closed, it would be logged at the arbitration case as well as general sanctions.

A few things need to be considered here. I think that this kills a few birds with a single stone. It empowers the community to resolve these disputes, and addresses the idea of "ArbCom doesn't touch content disputes" which may have been the partial cause for delay in this arbitration case. I also note that the discussion by ArbCom has not been set up yet, whether due to lack of interest or the holiday season, the discussion still needs to take place.

The proposal I made (Wikipedia:Binding RFCs, though the name isn't quite right) is currently under discussion at the Village pump, though discussion has been slow. It really needs a test case, and I think that this would fit perfectly. I'm happy to work with ArbCom to set up the discussion (though I will not take much part in the actual discussion as a party of the case) but I do think that this would be a win-win situation. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to arbitrator comments

@Risker, I disagree that the proposal has received no support. Discussion has been slow at the Village Pump, but there has also been expressions of support on the proposal talk page. It's the lack of participation that is the issue, which is why I discussed the possibility of this remedy being handled by the community as a test case. As for how the remedy is inadequate, well, I don't mean to be rude, but the remedy states that "A structured discussion on the names of the...abortion articles shall begin following the conclusion of this case and continue for one month thereafter." This structured discussion has yet to even be created, let alone the discussion started, and this is possibly due to a lack of interest within the committee, as arbitrator Casliber noted. It appears that from the case decision as well as the PD talk page that Cas was the drafter of remedy 5.1 and was the one that was going to set up the structured discussion, so while indeed it was with the consent of only one arbitrator that I came here, I figured it was the one that counted. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony, will do the notifying in the morning All parties notified. As for the remedy being inadequate, I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the case took over three months to be resolved, and I know that the internal discussion on how to deal with the article names was a factor in this. The discussion proposed in remedy 5.1 has yet to take place, and I feel that this process can word. It would be carefully observed by the committee (and likely by many others), and id expect nothing less. I apologise if I came off as rude. I have a vested interest here, that the process I am proposing be used is one I have developed myself, but I think since little has happened thus far, then it might as well be dealt with this way. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens, I came here after it was suggested by Cas. I can say little more except to suggest you read over the thread on their talk page which I linked to. I think that explains it better than I could, and I'd rather not take Casliber's comments out of context. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork, the main problem I'm facing here is apathy, or lack of awareness. Participation in the discussion at VP has been low, so I was thinking that a test case could work, and this situation is an ideal one. I'll see if I can get a watchlist notice to get more participation. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony, in short, the remedy is inadequate because it hasn't been followed through. No discussion has yet to be set up. I trust that there is some new talent on ArbCom, including yourself, though I honestly did think that the committee would jump at the idea. After all, arbs aren't exactly falling over each other to start the discussion. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbCom, I get the feeling that you are ignoring this request. While I realise the Civility enforcement case is keeping you all busy, but that's why you were elected. If y'all think that my idea is a bad one, then go ahead and say it, but at least say something rather than nothing. The case has been closed for a month and a half now, and this structured discussion was supposed to have been well under way now, but it is not. That's why I am here. It's really up to all of you. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony, I am in a bit of a sticky situation here, mainly because my personal and professional feelings are colliding. The consenquences of a friend being on ArbCom, eh. :-) I didn't start or setup any discussion because the remedy seemed to detail that this was something ArbCom would do, and as it was noted that it would be opened once the Abortion case closed. My impression was that arbitrator Casliber would set this up, as drafter of the remedy. I apologise for my abruptness and/or rudeness. I do acknowledge that ArbCom is busy, but at the same time feel that issues should be prioritised in chronological order. If ArbCom is happy for me to help set up the discussion, then that's fine. I can help with that too. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 01:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to parties

@Binksternet, nothing in remedy 5.1 has even happened yet. My proposal in this case is simple. Instead of a structured discussion where ArbCm would set up the discussion and appointed admins by the committee close the discussion, as a community (but in this case guided by the committee) would partake in a structure discussion, and three admins would close the discussion. There's really little difference, apart from it giving the community the power to resolve content disputes like Abortion, and possibly others like Senkaku Islands, Muhammad etc.Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 06:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyyankee, eh, I see the participation of disinterested people as necessary in the process, but agree that the discussion could turn into a vote if it is not watched carefully. That said, the structure of the discussion would have two parts, part one is where users would present evidence for their proposed title. This would be in the form of policy, backed up with other evidence. No other discussion would take place at this stage. Then, after a period of time, an AFD styled discussion would take place, where users would "vote" on their preferred title, with reasoning e.g. "I prefer the titles of pro-life and pro-choice movements as the titles and this is supported by X policy which is backed up by Y sources" or something like that. It's strength of argument that will be weighed at the close, which will be done by three users, so it is more likely that the outcome will be a fair one, and weigh comments, as opposed to doing a raw number count. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eraserhead1

The three editors close thing (as well as presenting a strong evidence based case) was also done at Talk:China and seems to have been relatively successful.

All in all this is probably needed, there seems no other sane way to solve these kind of disputes beyond the creation of WP:RFCCOM which never seems to get anywhere - or letting Arbcom do it, which has a lot of opposition and is probably bad. While you may be able to blame me for pushing a couple of cases in your direction we've just had abortion which needs this and we're dealing with Muhammad now which has similar issues which need a binding resolution. And we've also had Senkaku Islands very recently as well.

We probably have a whole bunch more cases like them that people have failed to escalate elsewhere on the project, I mean Muhammad got to half a million words before any serious escalation was done, that's insane. Discussions of that length basically prevent everyone from taking part - so people with families and stuff like that as they literally don't have the time. That isn't good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

I see no reason to replace Remedy 5.1 which was painfully obtained after much discussion and consideration. A test case for new practices should be found elsewhere. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NYyankees51

I see benefits and a possible detriment to this - The benefit is that this is a much simpler process and easier to understand and participate in, and it allows for consensus, not a majority vote. The negative is that it might make it too easy for disinterested people or meatpuppets to come in and say "Yes per above", and that would skew the vote. I think I would support this; I'll see what others think. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anthony Appleyard

After wading through much text, I get the impression that, in summary, the topic to be discussed is "In this case, as with Senkaku Islands and some others, discussion goes on endlessly and never comes to a decision. Therefore, let one neutral man be appointed to make a final ruling.". Please, is that correct? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other editor

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse on the specific case, but I will add some general comments. It is my firm belief that Arbcom decisions (or portions thereof) should not be overturned unless there is a clear need to do so. What is being proposed here is the preference of a single user, and it is not rooted in policy but is instead based on a suggested change in practice that has received almost no support. There is no indication that this specific situation has been discussed anywhere other than a one-on-one discussion with an individual arbitrator. There is no indication that there is any support at any discussion pages related to this issue to change the decision made. I'd suggest that the Requests for Amendment page is not the appropriate "first stop" for this proposal. Risker (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The original parties will please be notified of this amendment request. Steven, you will need to explain in what ways the final decision of Abortion is inadequate; at this point, I have no view. AGK [•] 17:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is still not clear to me how the current remedies are inadequate, and why a resolution cannot be achieved by simply fulfilling the uncreated discussion provided for by the original decision. AGK [•] 21:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Anthony Appleyard, In the case of both the proposed "binding RFC" and "systematic discussion and voting", I am not sure that such is the case. Under both paradigms, the decision about content is remanded to the wider community, and only the final decision is remanded to a small group of neutral users. My take is that the core of both methods is that the decision on disputed content is remanded to the wider community. AGK [•] 23:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Steve, I do not see how you reconcile your acknowledgement that our small committee has an enormous workload with your vociferous criticism of our (hardly unacceptable) response time. In any case, my view is that we should proceed by implementing the original decision by starting the "systematic discussion and voting". If you are interested, you could start it yourself. As a rule, this committee looks to the community to implement its remedies, and it strikes me that it is silly to look at an amended decision when the original remedy has not even been implemented. AGK [•] 23:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was unsure whether this needed a specific name or process that required an amendment as such, and would be content to have some three-admin closure of an extended discussion, if someone actually had an interest in chairing it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm neutral on this one. I can see Steven Zhang's point, but I'd also like to see the remedy proceed as Cas articulated... just to see if it works as designed. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The binding RFC idea is interesting, and as individual members of the community it would be appropriate for us to join the discussion and give our support if so inclined. Should we as a body support or oppose the idea? I don't think that would be appropriate while there's a community discussion in place. In addition, we are being asked to vacate a valid remedy with one that does not yet exist. If Wikipedia:Binding RFCs gets consensus, I can see it being proposed in future cases, and at that point it would be fully appropriate for ArbCom to consider using it - but this is too soon. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Firstly, apologies for not posting earlier. Overall, my view is that the subtly different version proposed my Steven is just as good. That is, if the case was still open, I'd give his variation equal support. However, given the case is closed, I feel there needs to be more of a necessity to use his version, and, at the moment, I don't see there is any such necessity. Otherwise, I would suggest the process should start in the near future, and if Steven is willing to lead this process, that would be most appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I wasn't an arb then, but if I had been, I would have recused from the Abortion case, so I'll just indicate that now. Courcelles 06:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]