User talk:Abd

Alternatively, I may not be back at all, more than occasionally, I have no crystal ball, and real life beckons invitingly.

Notice to IP and newly-registered editors

IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, this page is sometimes semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at User talk:Abd/IP.

WELCOME TO Abd TALK

File:Brain 090407.jpg

Before reading User talk:Abd

WARNING: Reading the screeds, tomes, or rants of Abd has been known to cause serious damage to mental health. One editor, a long-time Wikipedian, in spite of warnings from a real-life organization dedicated to protecting the planet from the likes of Abd, actually read Abd's comments and thought he understood them.

After reading User talk:Abd

After reading, his behavior became erratic. He proposed WP:PRX and insisted on promoting it. Continuing after he was unblocked, and in spite of his extensive experience, with many thousands of edits,he created a hoax article and actually made a joke in mainspace. When he was unblocked from that, he created a non-notable article on Easter Bunny Hotline, and was finally considered banned. What had really happened? His brain had turned to Dog vomit slime mold (see illustration).

Caution is advised.

Offering you the same as I have WMC

See this discussion for details.

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

ban remainder reminder

Regarding [this comment in an AN discussion, I looked and I couldn't find that you were an originating party on that particular dispute. I remind you that commenting in a dispute where you are not an originating party is a violation of your ban. I suggest that you re-read Tznkai's statement in the motion and also this comment where it is clarified to you that AN discussions are not polls and that your ban covers them. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Enric, that my comment there was distressing to you. Of course I wasn't an originating party. The "originating party" exception to the sanction and the "poll" exception are completely independent, as far as I can see. If not, it certainly was not and has not been made clear.

I will call your attention to a comment that was cited in the parallel AE request filed with the RfAr/Clarification you link to. This was a comment from an arbitrator on the MYOB proposal.[1]

• Support - To answer Carch, no it isn't part of policy. I'd say he could vote at "comment/support/oppose" sections, and for the sake of simplicity and unambiguity, I'd leave 3O off limits for the time being. Yeah I think this one is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It could hardly be more explicit. Tznkai has a right to his opinion, but I dispute it; I did not argue with it, though, because that would be useless dispute. If he has an issue with this particular !vote, he can raise it with me and I'll give his views due consideration.

My comment in the AN poll was very brief and aligned, it seems, with the consensus. It was not contentious or tendentious. Your objection to it is already more disruptive than it could possibly have been. What's your concern, Ernic, what is your purpose in this? You've made a series of comments that seem to have tried to wikilawyer this or that action of mine into a ban violation, such as my comment in an AfD (very much permitted) that prompted the RfAr/Clarification and the parallel AE request. ArbComm has, as a result, passed a motion of non-interaction between two of the parties of the arbitration. Perhaps a third party should also be enjoined. What do you think? --Abd (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This time I have only warned you, among other things because the edit was stale and no drama came out of it. Next time you push the limits of your ban I'll just report to WP:AE, and let others deal with it. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Smart. The first part, anyway. Not sure about the second, but suit yourself. Are you saying that if I want to see you before ArbComm, all I have to is make some marginal edit? That would be easy. I haven't been "pushing the limits," if I wanted to do that you'd see a lot more. A lot more. I've made comments in polls as permitted. The very first edit that was complained about was more marginal, but it was before ArbComm and I didn't think they would mind. I'm now interpreting the ban more strictly. Believe me. But, do realize, I'm allowed to file an RfAr as an "originating party." I'm sure that if ArbComm doesn't like it they can and will deal with it. They da boss.

By the way, see the title you gave this section. It's "reminder," not "remainder." Thought you'd like to know, you might have to use the word in an article some day. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo :)

Anyways, if you are planning to comment in more disputes at AN where there are "oppose" and "support" sections (what you call a poll), you should first make a request for clarification at WP:RFAR to make sure that you can actually edit them. Until Arbcom says that it's ok, my interpretation is going to be that you are not allowed to comment at those AN disputes where you are not an originating party, regardless of the format. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

An RfAr/Clarification will cause far more time to be wasted than is possible from my poll comments, unless editors like you continue to make a huge fuss about them. You might notice that the last request resulted in a blanket interaction ban for the editor who filed it. (That ban was symmetrical, but I hadn't been gratuitously interacting with that other editor, and certainly mentions of his name by me, if there were any at all, were not the cause of the multiple filings. And the ban is fine with me.) I have no intention of wasting ArbComm's time with more frivolous and unnecessary requests, but, certainly, if you or others continue to insist upon your interpretation, and continue to make a fuss about it, it will become necessary.

I should write an essay: WP:ELEPHANT. Don't waste energy to avoid waste of energy, don't run elephant exorcism ceremonies until you've actually got elephant droppings in your living room or see an elephant trying to break the door down. So to speak. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already told you that I will file a AE request if I see you again commenting at AN discussions and saying that it's ok because of being a poll. You are, of course, free to start any arbitration request on me or on problems in your ban. And, of course, I would rather have you avoiding AN and going to improve some article instead, but that's something that you have to do by yourself. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Enric, you've made your point, repetitively. Now, go do something actually useful yourself, and stay off my Talk page, it's purely disruptive, wasting not only your time but mine and that of the many editors who watch my Talk page. While I will still read what you post here, I'll revert it without comment unless you manage to actually say something useful, and if you continue with the useless, I'll file a complaint about harassment myself. Meanwhile, I've made article edits today and have more to make when I find time and am not distracted by this bullshit. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to comment but this does seem like beating a dead horse :-) Maybe we should all get back to writing an encyclopedia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What a concept! --Abd (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Email to me has been bouncing or is lost

Some time last Thursday, my domain host had a RAID failure, they claim, and they have been unable to repair it as yet. I have changed my Wikipedia email address to a new location, and any messages sent to me on or after Thursday should be, at present, assumed lost. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Amateur Radio Union/Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Twenty seconds. Wow! I immediately used Twinkle to place a speedy deletion tag, once I saw that the page was actually created, and Twinkle refused to save it, because you had already added a tag. Apparently, WP:SUBPAGE is incorrect, and it was important to a current discussion that I verify this. The software allows mainspace subpages. If SUBPAGE had been correct, there would have been no page created and no need for your tagging, but obviously you didn't sweat over it! Thanks for watching the project so closely, people like you are very important. --Abd (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, by the way. What I created wasn't a subpage, but a page with a slash in the name. Actually different. I'd claim there is a bug in the software, but if you don't want subpages in mainspace, it's a feature (it allows the use of ordinary slashes in article names, but ... take a look at Talk:OS/2, at the top it has a link to the supposed parent page, Talk:OS. Oops! No way around that, apparently, because Talk space does allow subpages, and the Talk page processing assumes that the slash indicates a subpage. Not a Huge Problem, but .... --Abd (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Red Cross Merges...

Since you did the Afghanistan Red Crescent merger, could you take a look at the other proposed mergers that I did for the Red Cross national organizations. One is at Lao Red Cross and the other at Red Cross Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Second leads to the question of whether it is a Red Cross or a Red Crescent. I think it is a Red Cross http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JR65 .

If there is an article with the official name and another with some short-hand for it, and there is little content in the unofficial name, it's pretty simple and you could go ahead. What's more of a problem is if there is different sourced content, that will require more work. As to Red Cross and Red Crescent, if they are the same organization, same social structure, then presumably it has a predominant name, and the other name would be a redirect. I haven't looked, but we might be lucky and there is an organization, incorporated in Bosnia Herzegovina, being something like the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society of Bosnia and Herzeogovina. But if one article (say Red Cross) is predominant and has most of the content, then it should be okay to use that article as the target, and put a prominent note at the time describing the multiple names. Whatever, it shouldn't be that important, as long as the result is clear and not prejudicial. I'd look at what the ICRC or the union society calls it. I'll look at what you did if I have time, later. Might. Might not. Thanks. -Abd (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just want to congratulate you

Kudos on the way you are "fighting the good fight" over the AfD of the ham orgs. It really looks like its a hams versus muggles fight. If the Muggles win and the articles do get destroyed, is there a way to keep "backups" of their content so that we don't irrevocably lose any information? Roger (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is an ambiguity in WP:ORG that I'm trying to fix so that we don't get muggles vs hams. However, if my position is not sustained at WP:RSN and WP:ORG, then the most likely thing is that the separate articles get merged back to a List article. No content will be lost. If an article is actually deleted, a copy can be requested from an admin. Probably, though, with some attention, Merge will be the ultimate outcome of the AfDs, which simply means that their content is replaced with a redirect tag, it is still all there in History, easy to find. (Go to the old article, you will be redirected to the target, but at the top, there will be a "redirected from" notice. Follow that, it will take you to the redirect. Then use the History tab to access history; normally the latest version before the redirect would be what you'd want.)

I oppose deletion/merge, though, because ultimately it is more work for everyone, and it is cleaner. Simple stubs should be used, and they do meet at least a liberal interpretation of notability requirements, which is why there is so much controversy at the AfDs. Editors interested in the field read WP:CLUB one way and deletionists, or others simply insisting on a particular reading of WP:RS and WP:ORG, read it another. What I'm trying to document is Actual Practice, and unfortunately a lot of editors don't like Actual Practice, or they only think of actual practice in unnoticed AfD process, where they, perhaps, live most of the time.

By all means, comment in the AfDs or at the policy page or the noticeboard, but do try to understand the guidelines first, and keep it civil. Much of the argument on both sides is beside the point. It gets really arcane sometimes. And please don't make it a muggles vs hams dispute. It really isn't. It's just two sets of common understandings colliding. Thanks for your support. --Abd (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

Why are you WP:HOUNDing me? You have followed me to at least 10 different articles where you have reverted perfectly valid edits as "inappropriate", reverted tags on multiple articles (and then contradicted my judgment, offering to "personally allow" the tags), replaced images in tens of inappropriate categories, etc. and generally worked to undo hours of my time. Without saying a word to me no less. Please stop. -- samj _in^out 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. I'm not hounding you. You aren't hounding me, Sam, but you are hounding User:LirazSiri. Stop yourself. Slow down. Address issues one at a time. And don't make it personal, it's not. Or it shouldn't be!

I encourage you to read WP:HOUND. You could be blocked if you continue. I'm not templating you, but keep it up and I will. Calm down and get advice from experienced editors who aren't involved.

On the substance, I saw that SJ was harassing LirazSiri and appears to be promoting an old agenda. Yes, I looked at his contributions, and it's a mess. I did not mass-revert, just in something like three cases (one of which involves a series of images), which he has now put up for deletion). SJ has edit-warred to promote this agenda, some of it was with LirazSiri, who is possibly a COI editor naive about how to respond, thus SJ can be seen as trolling to goad LS into a response that will get him blocked.

Not all of what I reverted may have been inappropriate. That's what happens when you mix in something that might be legitimate with garbage. The removal of the tags was because putting up dispute tags and the like without specifying the problem in article Talk is disruptive. But I offered to "allow" the tags if SJ would justify them in Talk. The tags say to refer to Talk. That's because an editor is supposed to begin a discussion in Talk before putting up the tags, so that others can know what the problem is. There was no current discussion, and SJ seems to have been upset about the article TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library being restored after DRV. And seems to take any criticism personally.

As to "hours of work," my edits could be reverted in a flash, by neutral editors. They are single edits, reverted with a button push, probably take about a minute to undo all of them. SJ seems to use many edits to accomplish one, making it more cumbersome to undo, unless I were to use Rollback, which is only for vandalism. I was tempted, because this was close to vandalism, and SJ has been using HotCat. But it was almost as easy to use version reversion, and wouldn't raise controversy.

I emailed LS to encourage him to calm down and also take this one step at a time. Enric Naval kindly stepped in to advise LirazSiri as well. (Enric, have you been following my contributions? Naughty, naughty! :-) But in this case, at least, your intervention may be positive. Thanks.) And if not for the notice above, that might have been it. I suspect, now, that this isn't over.

Thanks Abd (& Enric) your involvement and calm, patient guidance is once again appreciated. Unfortunately I've let Sam get under my skin. Something about ignoring Wikipedia editing policies (e.g., edit warring) while cynically citing me for violating them, dismissing my edits as vandalism, calling me names and making public threats on Twitter. It just rubs me the wrong way. Oh and the abuse of HotCat doesn't help. Maybe I just caught him on a bad day. Anyhow I've offered him an olive branch. Hope to put all of this drama aside and discuss our differences peacefully. LirazSiri (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd sent you email. Did you receive it? In any case, without coming to any conclusion or making accusations about any particular editor, Wikipedia has many obsessive and highly temperamental editors, or sometimes just plain mental. If you let them upset you, well, you'll be upset! And when you are upset, then you do what they do, upset the apple cart, break the china, raise a ruckus, and the gendarmerie notice and toss you out.... and maybe they notice the other editor and maybe they don't. It's what they see first! I'm a parent. I'm singularly unimpressed when one of my children says, "But she did it first!" The one that acted out, and I saw it, gets sent to her room. Over time, it averages out....

Do not edit the article unless it is totally noncontroversial. Suggest changes in Talk, discuss them. Enric is generally reasonable, for example, I'm pretty sure he'll help you, as will I. And there will be others. Ask for help if you see something that needs to be done where there might be controversy, and stop immediately if you run into controversy. Even if you think the obstruction is total idiocy. Sometimes it may be, or sometimes you might be overlooking something that needs to be considered. --Abd (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I think I'll take it. Every time I'm about to get fed up by all the drama and crazy antics of some of the people I run across on Wikipedia you come along and restore (some of) my faith in the community. And BTW no, I haven't read that email you sent me yet. I only access my email from my home computer for security reasons and I'm currently on a weekend vacation. Cheers! LirazSiri (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Shabbat Shalom. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request

I have requested that your editing restrictions be enforced. -- samj _in^out 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have requested, Sam, that you stay off my Talk page. This includes normally required notices; with any such filing, you may state with it that I have requested your absence from my Talk, and another editor may provide notice for me if they think the filing has any merit or there is other value to notifying me (it was unnecessary here). If you personally post here, absent permission (you may request permission by email), I will request that you be sanctioned for harassment. I am planning on filing an RfAr/Clarification, as I previously stated. That sanction has caused a lot of trouble because of unclarity as to specific application, and bans should be very specific, since they are theoretically designed to avoid disruption. All previous requests have either resulted in no approved sanction or in a clarification that narrowed the application, in spite of multiple requests that attempted to wikilawyer allowed edits into violations. We'll see what ArbComm comes up with on this one. I will leave this notice in place for a time. Please do not add to it. --Abd (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Smaller majorities

Do you remember the source you found supporting this text before it was reverted? Please respond at User talk:Objectivist. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Mmmm... I'm currently prohibited from any edits relating to Cold fusion, on-wiki. You could email me through the Wikipedia interface, or private message Abd at Wikipedia Review (you would need to register), or it's not hard to find my email address. I'll say this about that edit, though, hoping this is not too much.

• I was not responsible for that text. JzG is correct, technically. The text removed was OR, not supported by the source cited, and was actually misleading. (And his next edit was even more proper.) The reality is another story; and, yes, I have reliable sources enabling description of the reality neutrally. Text doing that was also reverted many times, both before I became involved and after. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that you have sources supporting the smaller majority, but you have been prohibited from saying what they are? Can you please put them on Wikisource, e.g., here? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that "smaller majority" is misleading. Both panels were (probably) unanimous as to final result. How do you get "smaller" than unanimous and still be unanimous? That's been overlooked, because the nature of the final result has generally been dismissed in favor of assumptions about what it means, and it is that meaning that shifted. Which largely involves OR if presented as a conclusion. Please don't tempt me to say more here. I will look at the possibility of contributing something to wikisource. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me to mention that some of the people posting to the Cold Fusion discussion claim that WikiSource is an unreliable source.... I tend to disagree, knowing something about what it can take to get something posted there. And here's one thing that should be more widely available than the place where it currently exists (uniquely?): http://www.ncas.org/erab/contents.htm --the full 1989 DOE report. V (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course Wikisource is an unreliable source, in itself. However, it can be used for convenience copies of reliable sources otherwise not easily available. The source cited should not be "Wikisource." Cite the original publisher. Wikisource is just a repository of copies. I won't comment on the specific document, it would approach my ban too closely. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to any neutral admin enforcing MYOB sanction over current incident.

I recognize that there is a debatable issue, at least, particularly for those without knowledge of the history, over my recent work with TurnKey Linux and thus involving SamJohnston and LirazSiri. My position is that I am indeed an "originating party," within the intention of my sanction, and will be requesting clarification on this from ArbComm. Any neutral admin, however, being inclined to otherwise block me, may temporarily clarify the sanction, being specific about behavior of mine which must stop, warning me here, and I will stop, pending clarification by ArbComm.

I did not wait to gain specific permission from ArbComm on this situation, which was rapidly escalating due to actions by the editors involved, because of the likelihood of damage if I did not act immediately. Very likely, due to errors by LirazSiri, a naive COI/SPA, SamJohnston would have been confirmed and aided in his harassment of that editor, through a block, when the real disruption (which is not merely a content dispute, though it involves content disputes -- not "vandalism" as repeatedly claimed) was coming from the other editor. My initial goal in responding to the AN/I report was simply to point out that both editors should "chill." I then, researching the evidence to present, I discovered what was really going on, and it was very ugly.

This was not a neutral intervention, I was involved with the article TurnKey Linux, which is how I saw this come down. --Abd (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I will clarify the sanction here for you: you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that "conflict in which you are an originating party" means the same as "conflict in which you have a prior interest". It doesn't mean that. It means there is a conflict that arose from a disagreement between A and B, and either A and B is you. Simple. In the present case, there was a conflict between A (SamJohnston) and B (LirzSiri). Neither A nor B is you, so it's off-limits. The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you want to focus only on the word originating the sanction actually bars Abd from participating in any DR which he did not personally initiate. This leads to the absurd situation where others can initiate DR against Abd and he is barred from even defending himself which indicates how ill-conceived this particular sanction actually is. Arbcom should restructure the entire sanction to implement something that is at least logically consistent. --GoRight (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. It's not about having played an "originating" role in the DR procedure (e.g. having started a noticeboard thread), but about having played an originating role in the dispute that triggered the DR process. If Abd finds himself in a content disagreement with somebody, and then that other editor or a third party starts a noticeboard thread about Abd, he is of course an "originating party". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You simply assert that you are correct. I simply assert that you are incorrect, FP. Who's right? Where has Arbcom indicated that your interpretation is correct?

Interestingly, with this post you now seem to be arguing Abd's point for him. If A, B, and C are all arguing about some particular issue and A files a DR action against B but explicitly excludes C how can you argue that C has NOT played an originating role that triggered the DR process? On what basis are you claiming that B is an originating party but C is not? Again, your original position stated above makes no logical sense. Either my interpretation as stated above is what was meant, which is clearly absurd and should be corrected, or I guess you are now in agreement with Abd's view and so he was correct all along. In either case your original interpretation is logically flawed. --GoRight (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

When someone, in their defense, points to literal meanings of words and legal logic, in contradiction to the apparent intention of guidelines, they are called "wikilawyers." When someone, attacking the behavior of someone else, argues the literal meanings of words and projects a technical substance as the intention of the guideline, as distinct from actual substance (technical substance is based on the meanings of words rather than the relationships of underlying realities), what is it? What's remarkable here is that both substance and literal meanings, if examined closely enough, point to the same conclusions, but those conclusions are different from what shallow thinking about meanings of words will suggest.

What's the substance of the sanction? This is the problem. There was no substance, in fact, because ArbComm did not adequately discuss the remedy, enough to make it plain, I suspect that each arbitrator may have had a different personal interpretation. Some, perhaps, would have preferred to simply ban me, and that was clear. Others wanted to avoid disruption but also recognized that I raised valid points, sometimes, so they tried to allow what was legitimate in their eyes, while preventing what was not. The sanction was a compromise, and actually discussing it in detail would have exposed major differences between the arbitrators. So they didn't debate it. They took the easy path, one that would seemingly satisfy everyone for a time. Perhaps I'd learn new ways and change my spots.

While I'm learning all the time, I'll be 66 in a few months. I'm not terribly likely to change much. I'm useful for certain things, not for others. I was an editor, professionally. I'm also a writer. They are two very different functions, Wikipedia confuses the hell out of them. Writers need editors. Editors who do not respect writers are boring pedants, obsessed with rules, which writers tend to consider undue restrictions on their creative freedom. The project requires cooperation and consensus, but dysfunctional editors -- who will in the real world be fired quickly -- will try to impose their own very limited vision. Basically, editors tend to become wikilawyers. And writers tend to hate that. Much of the disruption on Wikipedia is a result of this very classic cats-and-dogs relationship. Good writers are hard to find, and are extraordinarily valuable. Good editors aren't so much recognized, unfortunately, but what's a "good editor"? Is it one who is best at forcing writers to "follow the rules?" Not exactly! And an editor who takes that approach will either be fired or will bring the publisher to ruin. Rather, the editor interfaces between the writer and the publisher and the readership, and facilitates communication between them. Writers love good editors. And good editors love writers, and maybe even most of all those who break all the rules, but then allow the editor to make their work effective, by conforming to necessary rules defining and protecting the ultimate goals of the publisher. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That is also my understanding of the provision.  Sandstein  20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd, in view of the comments left at WP:AE#Result concerning Abd, and especially EdJohnston's comment, I would like to ask you to confirm in the AE thread that you agree to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained by Future Perfect at Sunrise above. If you not do so within an hour of your next edit, or if you do not do so in an unambiguous and convincing manner, I intend to enforce the restriction by means of a block as noted at AE. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did agree to abide by any restriction you set pending resolution of this at ArbComm. I consider your interpretation preposterous. But you have the right to make and enforce that restriction, hence I agree to abide by that meaning pending some other decision by ArbComm. Thanks for being clear. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

General comment. I have taken the MYOB ban very seriously, and hardly a day goes by that I don't see some situation where I have personal knowledge that I believe would be useful, but I don't comment because of the ban. There really is a dispute about interpretation here, which I am hoping that ArbComm will clear up. I had intended to ask for clarification before, but, frankly, it didn't seem urgent. Then I came across the current situation, and was, indeed, aware that some would interpret my action as contrary to the sanction, because of prior comments, and ArbComm's failure to clear this up when clarification was previously requested by other editors. However, I also considered that there was an emergency, and that damage might be averted if I commented, and my understanding about the amount of time that ArbComm normally takes to respond to inquiries would mean that it would be too late. WP:IAR is worded as an imperative, not as a permission. I've always taken it seriously, and if, in fact, my action was truly inappropriate, in substance, not in technicalities, then I'd prefer to be banned entirely. It would be entirely too painful to continue here under those conditions.

Nevertheless, to be clear, if I had thought that the ban prohibited what I did, I'd have reported the issues and the evidence by email to ArbComm or to certain administrators for their review and action. Possibly this would have been better than what I did. I'm far from perfect. But now ArbComm, hopefully, will clarify, so I'll know for the future. --Abd (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Wisdom

		Barnstar of Wisdom
		For your perspicacity: where others merely see, you are able to understand. Also for your humility, detachment, selflessness, caring, dedication, hard work, and muddlisimilitudinous efficacy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Overdue. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously, some people don't agree. It takes all kinds. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, your take, which I agree with, is that Wikipedia works best when decisions are made in an orderly way based on open discussion. I think we tend to disagree about fuzzy logic: as I see it, a decision by the Wikipedian community can't necessarily be built upon with logical deductions; it may be valid only in its original narrow context. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"originating party to the dispute"

There are two troublesome parts to my ban, and now maybe a third.

"vote in polls." There is no crisp definition of a poll. However, I've interpreted that a series of comments on a question, organized into support/oppose or confirm/overturn or keep/delete is a poll, and editors routine refer to these as polls. However, some seem to think that the page where the poll is taken matters. I don't see that in the ban. It's about "anywhere" on-wiki.

The ban was amended to state:

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions by motion on 16:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The new problem is whether or not I'm allowed to comment by email or otherwise off-wiki on a dispute. I've interpreted the ban as referring to comment on-wiki, only.

But the basic problem involves the definition of "dispute" and what the "originating parties" are to a dispute.

Suppose I see an editor attacking another. Is this a dispute? I'd say no. It's a behavioral violation by the attacking editor, and I can warn that editor. Not to take a "side" in the dispute that was underlying the attack, but to take a position on Wikipedia behavior. The same with revert warring. There may be a dispute at an article, but reporting an editor for revert warring is not about that dispute. It is about revert warring.

If I see an editor violating a policy, and I ask that editor to stop, and the editor refuses and claims the actions are proper, we have a dispute. The violation may involve some dispute between that editor and another, say a dispute over what text an article should have, but if I warn an editor for edit warring, this is not intervening in the dispute between the two editors, it is engaging in dispute resolution process over an asserted behavioral violation. If I revert an editor, this is a dispute, perhaps, between that editor and I. If I discuss the edit, it is not "discussing the dispute" without being an originating party. I took a content position, or sometimes a behavioral position. (I.e., I may revert an edit that I see as controversial when I believe it has not been adequately discussed.) That two editors may be arguing till the cows come how over that content doesn't change the independent relationship I have with each editor.

Apparently, as the sanction has been interpreted, I may file an AN/I report over an editor's behavior, otherwise "originating party" has no meaning at all! It's also been said that when I became involved in issues over the same articles and pages as two other editors, and apparently my warning one editor for harassing the other, or warning the other editor for failing to respect COI guidelines, was not considered to cross the line. And as an originating party, I could file a report to attract the attention of neutral administrators.

But if one of the parties files first, against the other, what can I do and what can I not do? Could I file an independent report? If not, why not? Could I, being involved in the current dispute, respond with the same information as I'd put in an independent report, but in the filed report, thus putting all related comment in the same place?

If one is permitted and the other is prohibited, the term "originating party" has become a mere technicality, the substance has been lost. But there was substance. I may see some dispute taking place, not being involved, and may then intervene with my trademarked walls-o-text, I presume. (ArbComm did not make clear what the harm was that it was preventing, except that something about what I write irritates some people. Length has often been cited, but it's also been pointed out by an arbitrator, when an editor complained about my "tome" that the comment by that editor to which I was responding was longer. Definitely, there is "something." That's obvious.)

I was often accused of wikilawyering. But, here, I'm being accused of violating a sanction following interpretations that are purely technical, rather than substantial. That's "wikilawyering." It's claimed that it's obvious. Having tried to live with the sanction for a few months, I'll confirm it isn't, and there have been many interpretations of the sanction that editors thought obvious enough to file an AE request over, that were not confirmed. There seems to be a general and easy opinion that my recent comments on AN/I were violations, because, anyone can see, there was an "originating party." It wasn't me, apparently. But wait a minute! GoRight points out above that the subject of an AN/I report did not originate it. Surely ArbComm did not intend to disallow me to respond to reports about me. Some of the claims about my alleged violations were where I responded to comments about me!

No, I think ArbComm intended to say "original party." Already involved. And, apparently, it's further restricted to being currently involved. I.e., not ancient history.

I was involved with the filing editor, over the previous two days or so, with regard to the matters the editor filed regarding. I was in substance involved. Just not named. And if I said why I was not mentioned, I'd be violating my agreement with Sandstein. None of this here is about the dispute with that editor, per se. No action is being sought in that matter at this time.

It's pretty bad, actually. ArbComm never explained what I'd done that was offensive, so the whole process of interpretation then isn't based on not repeating prior actions considered disruptive, but on technicalities of language and imagination of "what were they thinking?" And everyone comes up with their own idea depending on the result they want, which for a whole cadre of editors is quite simple: ban Abd. Do they know what "Abd" means? --Abd (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

More clarification for you. If editors A and B are having a content disagreement, and you see them edit-warring or engaging in other forms of questionable behaviour against each other, then the "conflict" in question is, and remains, a conflict between A and B, and only A and B are the originating parties. You may not then engage in any activity criticising, reporting on, or debating with, either A and B because of their behaviour in this dispute. About your interpretation that "If I see an editor violating a policy, and I ask that editor to stop, and the editor refuses and claims the actions are proper, we have a dispute": no, the intent of the sanction is precisely to stop you from spawning these kinds of follow-up meta-disputes. You may only approach an editor asking them to stop a questionable behaviour if that behaviour was already directed at yourself. Same for the issue of when to raise a matter at noticeboards: only if and when it relates to an original disagreement between you and some other editor about your own content editing, and/or if the other editor has explicitly taken the first step addressing you as their opponent in a disagreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect, at any given time there may exist many overlapping conflicts. You are arguing one line of thinking, and, I'll agree, the interpretation that "originating party" refers to an underlying conflict is correct. Yet if it is correct, then who actually files an AN/I report is irrelevant. You have, again, a generally correct view of the intention of the sanction, but it is one which defines my role as an editor purely in terms of "me." I.e., it completely disregards the possibility that I act to benefit the project, and to protect the project, not "myself." I'm here because the project is my business. You would seem to intend to restrict me to pursuing my own interests. Further, if your interpretation were the whole story, I'd have violated the sanction much earlier than my comment at AN/I. I'd have violated the sanction by reverting some edits of one of the parties. I'd have violated the sanction by warning the editors, as I did. Yet only the AN/I report was considered a violation by Sandstein, thus, while it would seem that you agree with Sandstein, you don't. From what you have written, you would draw the line in a different place.

And the whole point of a topic ban is to draw a clear line, and when there is no agreement on where the line is, the purpose of a ban is defeated and disruption is practically guaranteed. Hence the need for clarification by ArbComm.

My basic point is that there is no real consensus here, there is only some general agreement (among two or three admins) that I violated the sanction in the AN/I comments. But if we look at the details, the logic is different for each. There is no consistent understanding as to what the sanction intends, and unless we understand the intention, every interpretation is wikilawyering! It is attempting to derive conclusive rules of behavior purely from a set of words that may not have had conclusive intentions behind them.

My own understanding is that there is no coherent intention behind the sanction, except to prevent "disruption." The problem is that there was no agreement on what was disruption and what was not. It should be realized that some of my work is disruptive, on the face, and by nature, because I've confronted disruptive behavior of administrators. I've attempted to do this in a minimally disruptive way, but, quite simply, it's not possible to avoid all disruption without tolerating intolerable damage. I can and will maintain that my comments in the AN/I report were necessary under IAR, and that the substance of these comments was ignored -- so far -- and instead I've become the focus as a substitute, the flames being fanned by editors with old axes to grind. No problem with addressing my behavior separately, but if someone has been ordered by a court to stay away from their former spouse, but from a distance they see the spouse's house is on fire, and they rush to the door and knock on it and yell "Fire!", and, being first there, even enter to try to rescue the spouse and children, should they be punished for violating the injunction? Usually, they would not even be charged with it, if there was such a strong reason for acting as they did. And if they were charged, and the prosecutor, as a prosecutor might, simply pointed out that they violated the injunction, which they did, because the injunction was clear and the literal meaning was ignored, there is not a court in any civilized place which would then disregard the argument that public policy (the common-law equivalent of WP:IAR) trumped the injunction, and most courts would even reprimand the prosecutor for ignoring this fundamental principle and wasting everyone's time. And if, on top of this, the prosecutor had a conflict of interest, the prosecutor's job would be toast, for abusing the public trust in pursuit of a private agenda.

If I yelled "Fire!" when there was no fire, however, I'd be guilty of disruption even without the ban, and, indeed, I'd prefer to be banned, because it would mean that I'd become dangerous to the project. (Legally, there would be no criminal sanctions if it could be shown that I believed there was a fire, but there might be action, such as institutionalization, to prevent harm from my delusions. I.e., I can be banned here for delusional action that disrupts the project. ArbComm actually felt it necessary to note this as a principle, in the subject arbitration. Unlike many of the editors screaming for my head, ArbComm did recognize good faith behind my work.)

I did not particularly argue IAR at the AE filing, because I do not believe that I ignored the ban's intention and only a shallow interpretation of it. I was aware of that possible interpretation, because it had been asserted, and where IAR comes into play is that, most "properly" and least disruptively, I'd have waited to get a clarification before acting. It's too bad that ArbComm tossed the mentorship provision, because I could have consulted a mentor quickly. But it was the nature of the situation that immediate action was required. And because my comments were ignored at AN/I, there has been what appears to be serious damage. And that will come out later, if this sequence of events is reviewed, and we may know better then. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@FP - Sorry, FP, but this interpretation is clearly absurd. It implies that if Abd observes an edit war in progress that he cannot take action to raise the issue at appropriate venues such as AN3. I see nothing in the sanction nor the discussion surrounding it that suggests that Arbcom intended to bar Abd from taking proper actions to protect the project. If you believe that they did, please indicate where and how they made that point clear. --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the reason for the restriction is that when Abd takes actions he sees as proper he is not always right but has several times pursued the dispute to the bitter end and beyond anyway - to the point where ArbCom has decided, on behalf of the project as a whole, that we'd rather not have his help in such cases, thanks all the same. Wikilawyering over exactly how he can become involved in someone else's dispute without violating the sanction is missing the point pretty comprehensively. A comment on a talk page "I agree with X" is unlikely to be a problem, taking up cudgels on behalf of X is very likely to be a problem. This is not, I think, very hard to understand. Abd has mainly been doing a fair job of minding his own, and I think your counsel here is poor. Abd needs to learn brevity and when to step back, which he's been doing, but you're encouraging loquacity and the thought that perhaps he should get involved. That's really not a good idea for Abd's sake. He is capable of editing uncontroversially and knowledgeably in some areas but he has a personality characterised by endless repetition of long-dismissed allegations and refusal to accept consensus when it's against him, consist with his stated ADHD. This is stressful on everybody else and no doubt on him. Better to just keep away from such things. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I can agree with some aspects of what you wrote, though you aren't exactly disinterested. You -- and others -- wrote the "beating the dead horse" argument before, when it appeared that my arguments had been rejected by a majority of editors commenting. But can you point to an example where I pursued a dispute "to the bitter end and beyond" and was not sustained, in the end? Those "rejected arguments" were accepted by ArbComm, because they were firmly based in policy and guidelines and an expectation of ultimate community consensus, which takes time.

Where do I repeat, recently, "long dismissed allegations?" I certainly don't want to do that! What a waste of everyone's time, especially my own!

In this case, the problem is that I did not become involved (in a way violating the sanction) in "someone else's dispute." But if I describe what I did, to show that it wasn't that, I'll run afoul of the very interpretation of the sanction that I'm claiming is way beyond the original intention. Whether or not the MYOB sanction was a good idea is another matter; there is process for me to clarify and challenge it, if I choose. I have not done so yet (beyond a narrow RfAr/Clarification that I'm asking be withdrawn). I have indeed done what you suggest I should do, which is that, generally, I've "kept away from such things." I see a great deal, and I make no comment precisely because of the sanctions, and this happens many times a day.

But there is, apparently, a gray area that others see as being over the line, and. while I have not pushed the edge, as to what I knew of the meaning, others think I've crossed the line. Most of these complaints have *not* been confirmed, but the very fact that they were made then contributes to the impression that I've been pushing the edges.

There is one edit that I made where I knew that it would raise a fuss, and that was what I considered a true IAR emergency, and, I believe I could establish this with adequate discussion -- and I wasn't blocked for this. The edit I was most recently blocked for I had the full right to make, I propose, whether it was "wise" or not.

JzG, as a former administrator who butted up against the Wikipedia Problem, who obviously became frustrated and burned out and thus impatient, you could be an important part of the solution. Email me if you are interested. You could be helpful even without reading more than a little of what I write. --Abd (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would never claim to be disinterested, nor would I claim to be entirely free of the same faults myself. I may email you, if I don't it's not because I'm not interested but because I am a little preoccupied right now: I am trying to work out how to fit an increasingly busy amateur singing career around a professional life that also seems to be, much to my surprise, taking me in new and exciting directions - to say nothing of this being written on a train home at three minutes to midnight over a dodgy 3G connection. For the avoidance of doubt I do not think you are currently engaging in the sort of deceased equine flagellation that has caused problems in the past, which is why I was counselling GoRight not to even give the appearance of encouraging you back to a path from which, I think, you are departing. I suspect that those of us (I include myself) whoa re drawn to "teh drmahz" are, like alcoholics, never truly cured, only "in recovery". Feedback should be consistent and always directed towards the path of virtue. A tip from a past and present battle veteran: take the hot articles off your watchlist and politely decline any invitation to return. Oh, and however annoying the dispute, always consider: if I met this person in the pub, would we laugh over it or come to blows? I suspect we'd laugh. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. One of the things I saw first about on-line communication, back in the 1980s, was how low the bandwidth was. Human communication in person is only a little in words, and without the other cues, the words can be very, very difficult to "read." So people make assumptions.

But, Guy, I didn't encounter problems here from "hot articles" on my watchlist. Sure, I could cut out all the talk pages of my wikifriends, I could not ever look at the noticeboards, and ... I'd still get dinged and hauled before AE until the arbs are sick of seeing my name and assume it's me causing all this fuss. Maybe it is me, the very fact that it's known that I can see what I see. (Or, to be fair, that I imagine I see it.) Sure, I could wipe my watchlist and, say, just do Recent Changes or some other wikignoming.

But ... I also have a lot of interesting and useful stuff to do besides Wikipedia, plus my work here was oriented toward developing more efficient process, and the on-wiki part of that has been explored to due process limits. I've been looking around at the project, and much of it makes me almost literally sick. It's getting worse, not better. And I mean with respect to articles where I have no POV except maybe some transient interest in reading about the subject, that's why I looked. Dull. Deadly dull. Knowledge, perhaps, but with no spirit, no wisdom. There are articles that are things of beauty. And the author is under attack, being bitten by hundreds of ants.

I invited you with respect to the off-wiki work because I truly don't hold any grudge against you, because that work is designed to at least begin to solve the problems that caused your own work to become so frustrating, and because your experience could be extremely valuable. In any case, thanks for the comments. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Re this statement, do I understand this correctly that you are considering retiring from wiki editing, but at the same time still continuing to engage in systematic "process work" off-wiki, i.e. systematic off-wiki activities designed to influence decision processes on the English Wikipedia? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions for you, FP. Are you suggesting that Arbcom somehow has the authority to restrict the off-wiki activities of individuals? If not what is the relevance of your query? --GoRight (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm already doing it. My conclusion has been, for about two years, that it is impossible to address the well-known problems of Wikipedia, the kind of problems that have led to massive retirements, announced and otherwise, without off-wiki structure, that is, without structure that is independent of the disruption possible on-wiki. It is the only way for the community to tackle the problem, and, I'll note, ArbComm attempted to set up an advisory committee, which was effectively disrupted because it was organized by ArbComm, which is vulnerable. (An "advisory committee," quite similar in some ways to what ArbComm attempted to set up, is what I have in mind, with devices to insure that it was maximally representative of the community and able to effectively deliberate and communicate with the community and anyone else seeking advice.) The community is free and independent, as it must be, to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia, and its acceptance of on-wiki restrictions is voluntary. This is classic organizational stuff, the problems of Wikipedia were predictable. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, "influence" does not mean that such work would be designed to promote a personal agenda over, say, some POV, and such process would be open to all Wikipedia editors, subject to rules which the participating community would determine itself, and there can be more than one such "advisory committee," it is the nature of the process I'm proposing that it cannot be centrally controlled so as to systematically exclude significant factions from participation. I could not possibly personally control all such committees, only ones where I have special privileges, i.e., if there is a mailing list and I'm the "owner" and have not turned that over. But if someone disagrees with how I function as the owner-trustee, I would either invite the community to replace me, or if it declined, I'd invite the one disputing my management to start their own list, and I'd certainly make sure that the existence of such a list was announced. That's how to conduct oneself when one is actually seeking informed consensus. I will probably not personally announce the existence of any such lists on-wiki, you know why not! But others might. Maybe you will, eh? --Abd (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with Future Perfect

By the way, FP. We have a dispute. You blocked me in violation of recusal policy, over an edit critical of your actions, and you did not follow procedure by going to AE, you simply enforced a possibly controversial interpretation of the ban, and you blocked me for a week instead of the shorter initial blocks required by the arbitration remedies. How do you suggest that we resolve this dispute, with minimal disruption? It could be very simple. Or not, it's largely up to you. No rush, but, please, deliberate speed. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no dispute with you. I do administrative enforcement of Arbcom rulings about you, and will continue to do so. The fact that you may not like these actions doesn't create a "dispute". My last block of you was submitted to Arbcom for review by myself [2] and found no objection. Your own unblock request during that block was declined by another admin. Oh, and by the way, there is no "procedure" of "going to AE" that I would have been required to follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no review by ArbComm of the problem with your block, and I was prevented from commenting by the block, in effect. I've said plenty of things to ArbComm that they did not comment on. Does that mean that they agreed with it?

I disagree with the decision not to unblock me to allow me to comment, which is what I'd requested, but that's relatively minor and I elected not to contest it. Now, I can present evidence to you here, or elsewhere. Where would you suggest, since it seems you'd ned to see the evidence and arguments, I was hoping it could be even simpler than that. Or could you suggest a mediator? Someone you would trust to tell you if you made a mistake? Again, this can be simple or complicated, your choice. As I wrote before, when I've complained about recusal failure, and was blown off, and I pursued it, I've never missed. You might take that into consideration. Remember, I'm not the one who decides, in the end. If your actions were fully proper, you have nothing to worry about. If you made a mistake, just acknowledge it, and that would actually finish the matter. Notice, again, that when I filed RfD or RfAr before, I did not seek desysopping, I only sought clarification. Seek that yourself, and you will not find me in conflict with you. I guarantee you, though, from your comment above, we do have a dispute, and your denial is actually preposterous.

It has nothing to do with "disliking your actions." It has to do with recusal policy, which you seem to have no interest in at all. That's dangerous. I'd suggest considering this more carefully. We would all benefit, including yourself. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct venue for assessing the validity of an admin action is an admin RFC/U. Only, you couldn't file one now, because you never managed to persuade even a single other editor that there was a dispute to be solved. Or perhaps you didn't bother trying, I don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for obvious reasons, RfC is not yet the correct venue. I'd really suggest a review of WP:DR. The first step I just attempted here, and it looks like we are done with that, though you could decide to go back at any time. Do understand, please, that I've been through this before, with both kinds of results. You are probably only aware of the nasty outcomes. It does not have to be that way.

You are correct. I didn't bother trying. Yet. I hadn't taken the first step yet. So now it's time for the second. I have choices. I do understand from the above that you are, more or less, waiving any right to insist on steps before RfC. Correct? But I will take those steps anyway, as is also my right, and a real necessity if RfC is to be filed. For whom did I file an RfC before, I've only filed one? And who certified it? Do you remember? And what was the outcome? Please be careful, FP. A little caution here could save a lot of problems later. In fact, one sentence from you, simply confirming policy and its application, could end all this. An RfC will be much more of a nuisance, that can be predicted. And I mean "nuisance" for everyone. Including me.

Unfortunately, there are administrators who do not support recusal policy, and who have openly defied it. They get away with this far too often, and the only way to enforce the policy is to raise the issue when it's violated. But if you support the policy, and perhaps erred, simple to fix, and punishment is never my goal. If you support the policy, and disagree that you violated it, then this is a dispute, and that's why we'd need to get help. I assume good faith, FP, I'm not asserting anything other than that about you.

By the way, if I try to find a third opinion or other editor to seek to resolve the dispute, and fail with both, that will end it, at least for now. That's how DR works to prevent frivolous escalation. Let's see what happens, okay? --Abd (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please delete your subpage

Please delete this subpage: User:Abd/Response to Verbal. The most obvious reason, among several compelling ones, is that its usefulness has past. Thanks, Verbal chat

Thanks for making the request here instead of immediately at MfD, as others did! This page is one of a whole series of pages in which I responded to comments of other editors at the RfAr. Because there were many editors filing comments requiring detailed response, to respect the work that those editors put into them, and to address the issues raised, I did not respond in my Evidence section directly, but by reference to the pages in my user space. One of my referenced pages has already been moved to WP:Arbitration subspace. The rest of them should be, and, assuming that it is not opposed, that's what I'll do. It is there for the record, and I do believe that it could become useful in the Future. However, if you wish, the content can be blanked. It's better if I do it than you.... Is that what you would prefer?

You may also comment on the Talk page attached to the subject page, but please do that after I've moved it, so as to not create an extra page and redirect.... The user page as it is should not be edited, because it should show the state of the pages as of the decision by ArbComm. All those pages may have been a part of the decision-making process, for better or worse, by some arbitrators. Deletion of a lot of the evidence has already been requested, and denied. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This page and several others should be retained as part of the historical record of an arbitration case. It should not be removed unless and until its full contents (including history) are archived as part of the Arbitration case itself. I believe at one time one the the arbitrators wanted to have this done but it does not seem to have happened unless I am unclear on where it was done. I have a similar page in my user space which should likewise be preserved, as do other editors. --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence/User:Abd/Cabal. Yes, GoRight. The other pages that I created should be moved to Arb space, and such pages should probably originally be placed there or moved when the case closes. A user, in fact, should not be able to do what Verbal proposes, and that argument was presented by others, who did not want to see the "Cabal" page deleted because they believe, apparently, that it should stand as evidence of my serious derangement. Time will tell, eh? I have a lot of experience looking back at stuff I wrote decades ago. I'm not quite as crazy as many think. But, of course, I could start losing it any time, it happens, and I'd be the last to know. Prepare for this, people, and be careful what you write, the future is watching. Develop real friends, the kind who will tell you when they think you are wrong. It's easier to learn now, when you are younger. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I just reread the page. Thanks for calling my attention to it, Verbal. If I made any mistakes there, please let me know, and I can possibly annotate it some way, definitely I could comment on Talk and put a note on the page referring to it, specifying that this note was added after the RfAr, maybe I could even use strikeout with such a note. Any specific complaints? (I did invite correction of errors during the case, and there were no such responses.) --Abd (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, as it says "draft" I never responded to it, as I would have done had you used it. I did ask if it was used and I was told no, I can't remember who by but I think it was directed to you. So it should either be blanked or deleted (I see no reason to keep it as part of the record, as it was never used and was not therefore part of the process). I remember objecting at the time that it is not factual, but I really don't think that's useful to go into. So please either blank or delete it. You could blank it and put a note that it was never used and the target disputes the claims but they are no longer relevant. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All the responses were labeled DRAFT because I did intend to revise them to clean them up, particularly if any corrections were suggested. None were, and that case spun totally out of control, it was way to much for anyone to handle. The opinion of any arbitrator on whether or not the pages were considered is not reliable as to the usage by the entire panel, so to delete these pages would properly require a motion by ArbComm, and I doubt it is worth that. I would personally want to know if I distorted the facts in that comment, or in any of the comments, but it's up to you whether or not you'd want to take the time.

I have blanked the page, moved it to Arbcomm subspace, and opened the Talk page with a reference to this discussion, and you are completely welcome to comment on that Talk page, that should go without saying. It's not my page any more, though I would certainly oppose deleting it.

I intend to move the rest of these comment pages, but moved this one so that I could open the Talk page and not then have to move that, too. Thanks for bringing this up. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence/User:Abd/Response to Verbal

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Verbal chat 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DNTTR. Especially one that implies something that is totally not true (like the creation of an attack page). Verbal, that page was created for and cited in an RfAr. There is no way that this is a simple "attack page," it was, in fact, a response to your attacks and misleading evidence. However, why are you bringing this up now? If that page contained errors, you were invited to correct them long ago, when the page was cited in the evidence, as "draft," yet you now claim that you saw errors, but you waited to find out if it was "used" or not. It's not clear what that would mean, but, presumably, if I'd taken the word "draft" off of it? But the time to fix errors is with a draft! No, something else is going on here. What is it, Verbal? Why now? --Abd (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the page was not actually deleted. I moved it to WP space, as was done with another evidence page that was likewise effectively a subpage of my evidence in that case. What was deleted was the redirect left behind when the page was moved back to my user space. There was a threat of MfD, but one does not seem to have been actually filed. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

Abd, quit vandalizing the IRV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.171.11 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Moi? Vandalize? I was out of reverts anyway. Anyone seeing this, take a look at the history of the IP removing content from the article for a declared political agenda. I didn't put that material there, but removing it without discussion? No. Otherwise, I DGAF --Abd (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect, thanks for warning the IP editor. However, even though the IP was edit warring with two editors, you allowed the edit to stand. If you look at 71.234.171.11, you will see that this IP started up with vandalism to a related article, and that the second revert had a reason given, (Removed disputed information inserted for political reasons by opponents of IRV--to influence voters in an important referendum vote in Burlington, VT on town meeting day 2010), which, on the face, establishes a political agenda for the edit. It's true I used a vandalism template, but because of the history of actual vandalism, and I also noted that there might be a good-faith purpose to the edit. I wonder if you might consider taking the article back to the pre-political agenda state, as it would be a bit inconvenient for me to do it at the moment :-). As to the content, I have not seen a discussion of that content. I am familiar with the history reported there, and it's solid, but have no comment on balance or other issues at this point. I was asking this editor to discuss, not just rip sourced material out because there is an upcoming referendum. --Abd (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again

With this edit, you have continued exactly the behaviour you were previously warned to stop: discussing the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston. Moreover, you did so in terms that amount to personal attacks, comparing S.J.'s actions to acts of criminal violence ("mugging"; calling S.J. a "mugger"). I don't know what makes you think you are allowed to do these things on the Arbcom page, of all places, when you are forbidden to do them everywhere else. You are not. And to forestall another misunderstanding you hinted at: you will not be allowed to file Arbcom requests about that dispute either.

You were clearly warned, by Sandstein and by myself, and several other admins have in the meantime agreed that my warning was justified. You promised to heed the warning, but didn't. I am therefore now imposing another enforcement block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect I think it would be better if you stop with these macho style blocks. Abd has a different style than most editors however from what can I see he's a good faith editor who much cares for the project. I have also noticed the other day you made this other weird block [3] which leaves me a bit speechless. Blocking a guy for 12 months because you don't get what's the dispute about and his english is bad? Come on. Perhaps it wouldn't be bad if you would try to find a wider consensus for such blocks. Just my 2 cents.  Dr. Loosmark  22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Above on this section, I discussed my claim with Future Perfect that he had improperly blocked me before, for an edit in which I criticized him. He has denied that allegations of involvement would prevent him from insisting on blocking at his discretion. It's an arbitratable issue, it appears, and he's now allowed a complete bypass of normally required preliminaries. I do not think that my edit violated the sanction at all; necessary process before ArbComm, where I was very clearly the "originating party," would seem to be exempt from the sanction he claims to be enforcing, explicitly, and surely ArbComm can handle inappropriate behavior that happens on its pages. It's hardly going to escape notice in a simple request (evidence and workshop pages can get out of hand). Thanks, Loosmark, for the comment. Be careful, and be patient. There is no need to create disruption over this, but the more editors who are aware and watching, the easier it all gets.

• Blocked? Funny, I don't feel blocked. Seems I can edit anything I want. Thanks, FP. I think you have made things much simpler. Truly, I didn't expect this. I like surprises. I hope you do too. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  FYI, I have opened [4]. MathSci thinks I am forum shopping and drama mongering. JzG believes I may do more harm than good. In light of these points if you prefer that I just drop the matter please let me know. Otherwise I am inclined to let the matter sit at AN and see what the uninvolved administrators there think. It is not my intent to create drama, only to have an independent review of the block. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Pope is Catholic. As to AN, be nice. Be careful. It seems that this goes to ArbComm no matter what, so don't spend any important capital. I'd say, though, good idea to keep requesting independent review until it shows up, and the editors you mention are certainly not neutral. "Uninvolved Mathsci" Hah! Independent review is what's missing, too often. But the issues are complex, much more complex than they can appear on the surface, and it may need ArbComm attention anyway.
• Don't argue with them. You said your piece. Let them say theirs. It all helps in the end, but more is less. Keep asking for neutral comment every once in a while until there is some. But, remember, it may not appear. Most sensible editors don't read the noticeboards!
• Sandstein should be notified. I don't know if he's on board this. If he is, and if he approves of the week block, I probably will not appeal it, even though Future Perfect is "involved." That is, I won't put up an unblock template. RfAr seems inevitable now. I'd roughly asked Sandstein about situations like this, though. He didn't answer with definitive enforcement decisions. He did not, however, comment on material I had already placed there at ArbComm. Perhaps he didn't read it?
• I did not expect, though, to be blocked for commenting before ArbComm, and particularly to be blocked for it by Future Perfect. That was a case in which I was the originating party, after all, and the circumstances of the issue at AE were therefore relevant. I really don't see that as covered by the ban, and nothing Sandstein said made it clear that it was, unless Sandstein's clarification was totally removed from the original intention, and I didn't read it that way.
• Some of this may have been a long time coming. Don't present long argument at AN, keep it very simple. Above, there is a section where I laid out the dispute with Future Perfect. I was hoping this could be resolved way before ArbComm. Seems he'd prefer something much swifter. The issue of "I'm in charge of AE, no matter what you think, no matter how it looks," must be confronted. It's not just about him, other admins have made the same mistake. It's disruptive and unnecessary. If someone claims involvement for admin after admin, maybe there is a point to insistence (though surely there are three neutral admins, and at about that point the poor editor would be indeffed), but when that's clearly not happening ... if he wanted to keep his bit, I suspect he just blew it, badly. He was already in hot water, but it could have been very easily resolved. It might simply have gone away, I do get distracted. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the idea of not editing. What a concept! Haven't tried to edit anything other than this page. Don't plan to.
• It may take me about a week (convenient!) to get the filing together, and I'll be seeking help. Volunteers can email me.
• "Vague threats," they've been saying. What's vague about this? But if there is no support, if I have to do this alone, why bother? If I have to do it alone, it means the time is not ripe and it will be pure disruption. It will be bad enough with two. Probably a good idea to wait for three editors at least. I'm not convinced there are three clueful editors left, a huge number have left, which is why I'm not holding my breath about what happens at AN. Sometimes, though .... you never can tell. If there aren't enough left, the wiki has become not worth saving. It will fall. I know the mechanisms that will bring it down, fairly well. That are bringing it down. Lots of editors, highly respected, know this, but they don't know what to do about it. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to admins considering unblock

I'm indifferent. I have work to do on-wiki, but I also have plenty to do off-wiki. If you believe that the welfare of the project will be better served by an unblock, then consider yourself free to do it, within what is allowed as to reversing administrative decisions. Probably Future Perfect should be consulted, unless there is consensus that his block was involved (notice the dispute section above, and if more information is needed -- that section was not accompanied by evidence about the existing dispute because I didn't want to write it as the first approach -- but, if asked to do so, I would.)

Please do not unblock me if it would cause more disruption than it would prevent; the block will expire in a week anyway and delaying unblock that long is not likely to cause serious harm. On the other hand, comment on the propriety of the block is welcome here, and there is also an open RfAr/Clarification. I had filed that, and it was over comment in it that I was blocked. Possibly I should have a transcluded section there, in my section of the RfAr, and I'm going to need guidance from ArbComm as to any limits to be placed on what I can say there.

I could be unblocked under a provision that I only edit the RfAr page, though that's problematic here because I was blocked for editing the RfAr page! Not sure I've ever seen anything quite like this before. --Abd (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting on this for a few days, I conclude that the least disruptive course of action for me at this time is to wait out the block, a few more days. When I return to normal editing, I will decide whether or not to file an RfAr against the administrator who blocked me, based on evidence and advice currently being gathered (off-wiki) (or some resolution perhaps proposed by Future Perfect or another editor). There has already been an AN discussion over the block, and certainly there is no consensus there for unblock. Therefore unblocking me could be disruptive, and I do not recommend it. The project can survive me being blocked for a few more days, I'm sure, and I have plenty of good uses for the time. Any dispute between me and Future Perfect, the blocking administrator, can be resolved in an orderly fashion. Because of the AN review, however, it's clear that RfC/Admin, as suggested by Future Perfect, would be a waste of time. Either this will be resolved by agreement of Future Perfect, by its becoming moot, or by ArbComm, and that might be very simple. --Abd (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your messages

Hello, this is in reply to your messages per mail and on my talk page requesting my opinion on your current situation. I am refraining from helping you parse the fine detail of your restriction as applied to various hypothetical or real situations, because I believe you are going down the wrong path entirely with this wikilawyering approach. You have chosen to not heed my advice, and while I have not evaluated the merits of your current block, I can't say that I am much surprised by it. My advice is to sit out this block and, again, to just stop discussing all matters related to disputes, arbitration or sanctions.  Sandstein  06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I'm going to stick to basics, here. I withdraw my agreement to accept your interpretation of the sanction, which was far stricter than the plain meaning. Voluntary compliance carries an expectation of protection. There was none. I have now, only one recourse, which is ArbComm. I understand that I'm not following your advice, which assumes goals different from mine, I suspect. Thanks for responding, and you may consider yourself relieved of any further responsibility on that regard.

But one comment. You were not surprised. That speaks volumes. It means that you accept and consider routine the abuse of discretion represented by Future Perfect's action. It means that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I was, in fact surprised. I really didn't think he'd be so willing to set himself up to be taken to RfAr immediately. It's hard to do that based on a single block. He's handed me two, now, in a manner that has foreclosed all otherwise necessary preliminary process. I'll probably need about a week to put it together. Practice makes perfect, you know.

I don't do this for myself. That's why I'm not taking your advice. If my goal were to secure my personal rights, you'd be right on. --Abd (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2010

By the way, tentatively I will indeed sit the block out unless I'm spontaneously unblocked, and I've suggested that this only be done with caution. I plan to file RfAr over one or maybe two issues, and that takes a lot of time and effort, so the block is actually helpful in a way. It does prevent a little article work, but there is nothing that can't wait or be handled some other way. GoRight filed an AN report over this block, and so far, almost no positive response (i.e., toward the idea that the block was abusive), only DanT. What that means is that RfAr is the only recourse, I've been in this place before, with my complaints being later confirmed by ArbComm. Apparent consensus; ban Abd. (2/3, in one case, and almost unanimous in another). Actual consensus and ArbComm decision: the administrator was abusing the tools. But it takes better process to find that consensus. And what's being shown is that ArbComm intervention and decision will be necessary. That's sad, in a way, and I hope ArbComm will establish more efficient process to deal with situations like this, and even to prevent them, because the community is basically paralyzed and can't. Unless it happens off-wiki, Plan B. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the Streisand effect, my friend.

Remember, and mark it well. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

response from Abd

Indeed. Streisand is a favorite of mine, but that doesn't mean she didn't do something very stupid, and I see that stupidity here pretty frequently. But it's hard to tell the difference between someone who doesn't realize that making a huge fuss will, er, attract attention, with consequences they will actually dislike, and someone who wants the attention and doesn't care if they get, say, blocked or banned. Like yourself, presumably. Or someone who doesn't [DGAF|GAF} and just likes to sing loudly. Or someone who simply considers himself obligated to testify to what he knows, until it's clearly become useless. At that point, the obligation ceases to exist. To paraphrase, it's not over until the fat lady dies from throat cancer. Or prostate cancer, in this case, perhaps. Frankly, I'll sing, or do the other thing, as long as I can, and I'm deeply grateful that I can still do both and there are a few people who like to listen, and one who likes the other thing. One is enough for that! If someone wants to stop me here, they know how to push the button, but I don't recommend it. Streisand effect, you know. Those block buttons only control on-wiki edits, and even then, not terribly well, for them to work depends on my voluntary compliance. So far, that compliance remains an obligation. That's just a fact, not a threat. I'm amazed at how many people get outraged when a fact is pointed out.... I shouldn't be, since I've been noticing this for my entire adult life, but I am. Thanks for stopping by. I do also have an account on Wikipedia Review, if they don't ban me. And I'm easy to find, I use a real name and my address is in lots of places. --Abd (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request regarding current RfAr/Clarification

There is an open Request for Clarification regarding a sanction decided at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, see live link, or permanent link.

Newyorkbrad is the only arbitrator to comment there so far.[5] I agree with him, and, unless other arbitrators wish to address the issues raised, I support the close of this request with no finding or clarification. My reason for this: it is apparent that any useful clarification would require more discussion than can be accomplished at RfAr/Clarification, and that I was blocked while this request was pending, for comments made in the request itself, is an additional impediment.

There is no need for extra debate or argument. I have stated that I am willing to accept a tighter restriction than the way in which I interpreted the sanction, pending clarification by ArbComm. So the status quo is that the restriction is tight, though not necessarily as tight as defined by the administrator who blocked me. I do not consider myself restricted from what the sanction explicitly permits, and I'd argue that he did so consider. I accepted Sandstein's decision ("clarification") as a neutral administrator, pending ArbComm review, not Future Perfect's who was already involved, and I had already claimed that he was involved in dispute with me.

I will continue to respect Sandstein's tightening as standing and binding on me, and will interpret this very narrowly but as originally stated, and it did permit legitimate comment before ArbComm, when I am an originating party, as is normal. Normally, I can, having filed, respond there to comments from other editors, also made there, which is what I did. ArbComm specifically allowed me to originate a case, and if I'm clearly involved as well, I see nothing in the sanction which requires me to avoid it.

I will not use this as a loophole to drive trucks through carrying my opinion about disputes between other editors, and I will avoid, in such a filing, if it happens, unnecessary mention of disputes between other editors. Obviously, if I file a case claiming involved use of tools by an admin, I will present evidence of involvement and existing disputes or other reason that recusal would have been required, which would only mention other disputes peripherally, and which will not be an attempt to resolve those other issues.

I hope that there is more clerk attention to an actual RfAr than there has been to the existing RfAr/Clarification, which, as it stands, includes an illegitimate edit by someone other than me to the material I filed. It's been pointed out by GoRight, with clerk attention requested,[6] and nothing was done. Nevertheless, if the request is closed without action, it's moot. The real point here is that if clerks were following filings before ArbComm, surely this would have been noticed and reverted or moved, and possibly the editor warned. --Abd (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding examiner.com

Abd, when a blacklisting request is not mentioning the abuse, then that does not mean that it was not abused. Also, the request does give other reasons for blacklisting besides it not being a reliable source, which you forgot to mention in the de-listing request. For Examiner.com, it was abused by at least one account, and there have been a.o. requests where de-listing was requested because the de-list-requester wanted to link to it to earn money (which was one of the reasons it was blacklisted as well). May I ask you in following de-listing requests to give a full picture, and maybe also looking a bit behind the scenes of what happened in stead of only mentioning the ArbCom remark that sites should not be blacklisted solely on a source not being an unreliable source (which, IMHO, even forgetting the not-mentioned abuse, was not the case here). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When the bulk of the arguments about why a page should be blacklisted consist of denials that it could possibly be usable as reliable source, it creates the appearance of a content justification of blacklisting. The issue here for me was that, simply exploring sources for Talk, I found that an edit with three links in it was rejected, and I had to try a number of variations before figuring out which one was blacklisted. That's a software fault (the rejection should always give the offending link or links), but I've seen many novice editors run into this and become quite frustrated. I'm not a novice, and I knew what to do, but I was still frustrated!

On the other hand, I agree there is a reason to assert unusability, that is, it removes a weight that would otherwise be stronger for not listing. I'm not attached, Beetstra. For others who might wonder what this is about, see this permanent link.

I did sufficient due diligence, I believe, by linking to the blacklisting discussion, you expect way too much if you want more than that. Note that the blacklisting request actually stated, I'm not aware of any concerted spam campaign, but the other issues related to examiner.com links have convinced me that we should be blocking them to discourage their use as a reference. None of the discussion referred to actual abuse, only to a theory and assumption that abuse might be possible due site policies. Isolated editorial misbehavior would not justify blacklisting, I assume you realize that. We've been over all this before. Do you recognize why the granting of that request, without better explanation, was a cause of concern? --Abd (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some comment to Talk:Examiner.com to possibly help someone else running into the problem. I notice also that there is an open whitelisting request. The only basis for denial is a content argument, apparently, so I'm not going to close it! But it shouldn't be left there unanswered like that! Do you recall, Beetstra, that I proposed that whitelisting be handled more or less routinely with granting it to apparently responsible editors? -- and, quite appropriately, reference to the reasons why the editor might want to not actually use the page in an article. I see that you granted a request, for an article written by an apparent expert, good work. What I'm noticing, looking at examiner.com pages, is the apparent quality of the articles, which is quite high for "user-generated content." I've seen a lot worse in "reliable sources." Not to mention Wikipedia.... Maybe there is something to the Examiner model! (I'm not proposing any changes to WP:RS, just in case you'd think otherwise.)--Abd (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Beetstra original response, replying with interspersal

I know the problems with the software and the blacklist. It is unclear what is blocked and why. There are also voices (and I would be grateful for that as well), that the blacklist had some logging facility which shows if editors attempt to spam/use blacklisted sites. The blacklisting request indeed indeed starts of with 'it is not reliable anyway', though Hu12 does hint to the rest, it is a pay-per-view site, self published, no editorial oversight. That pay-per-view is thé significant problem here. The man-in-the-street can earn money with this site, one gets an account, scrapes info or writes rubbish, links to it from Wikipedia, and for any fool that follows the link you get money. The spam incentive on examiner.com is huge. And that proved quickly after blacklisting, where an editor requested de-listing (or whitelisting, I can't remember), which was denied with 'this is not a reliable piece of information, are you not here to make money?', to which the requester replied 'Off course I am here to make money, would you not?'. It pays to spam, Abd, and that is just where Examiner.com is the problem, that is where it becomes uncontrollable. If you follow discussions, I have explicitly denied a blacklisting request recently where there was some abuse (IMHO, controllable abuse), but where the site is unreliable. Examiner.com is also unreliable, but with the pay-per-view incentive spamming of this site becomes quickly uncontrollable. It is easy to get an established account here, where there is no stop to pull money out of Wikipedia's linking .. and blacklisting all specific cases also has no end, spammers can just change the url of their document and there we go again (that is exactly why redirect sites are blanket blacklisted on meta .. ). Whitelisting (and blacklisting/de-blacklisting) remains a problem. Not many admins want to go there, it is a select few that have to handle it. And it does not change. It is roughly (the admins) Stifle/Hu12/A. B./JzG/me (and maybe a couple more). Questions on WP:AN or WP:AN/I for more help are met with silence (and why, quite correctly JzG said some time ago something along the lines of 'yes, come and help, it is a nice way to get trolled mercilessly'). I'd really like to have more help there, then it would be easier to have admins who were not involved in the blacklisting review the de-blacklisting or whitelisting, but the manpower is scarce. Examiner.com is not the worst, indeed. And at least there is some control. Associated Content, Hulu are worse, indeed. However, if I recall correctly, examiner.com did deliberately try to confuse themselves with other sites with the name 'examiner' in them, which are reliable sources. And for examiner, there is a lot of crap there, and then the rest contains a lot of scraped info, and some of what is left is then useable here as a source. We need more manpower on the whitelist, but this should really be handled on the whitelist, quick, not too much difficulty, though requesters should keep in mind that the info they want to use is reasonably reliable and not easy to replace with something better .. keep the workload low. Until now, after quite some whitelisting requests, there are not many examiner.com links whitelisted. It is not that much. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Beetstra in italics. Abd responses are signed individually so that responses may also be kept focused on individual points.

I know the problems with the software and the blacklist. It is unclear what is blocked and why. There are also voices (and I would be grateful for that as well), that the blacklist had some logging facility which shows if editors attempt to spam/use blacklisted sites.

Yes, it could be useful. But remember, more information available means more work to analyze it. The key to these issues is distribution of labor, and the dangerous thing, for several reasons, is concentration of responsibility and power into a few unsupervised hands. In looking at what happened with examiner.com, it leaps out at me, the resentment created by the exercise of administrative editorial control by an individual admin making a content decision. I'll address the blacklisting arguments below, but the arguments about spamming don't apply to whitelisting requests, at least not nearly as cleanly. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The blacklisting request indeed indeed starts of with 'it is not reliable anyway', though Hu12 does hint to the rest, it is a pay-per-view site, self published, no editorial oversight. That pay-per-view is thé significant problem here. The man-in-the-street can earn money with this site, one gets an account, scrapes info or writes rubbish, links to it from Wikipedia, and for any fool that follows the link you get money. The spam incentive on examiner.com is huge. And that proved quickly after blacklisting, where an editor requested de-listing (or whitelisting, I can't remember), which was denied with 'this is not a reliable piece of information, are you not here to make money?', to which the requester replied 'Off course I am here to make money, would you not?'. It pays to spam, Abd, and that is just where Examiner.com is the problem, that is where it becomes uncontrollable.

I looked for that request, didn't find it so far. But that statement means nothing. It could have been a troll, a straw man. Or it could have been real. And most professional writers make money for writing, that's why they are called "professional." Most reliable sources are written by professionals. There are several points here.

• Blacklisting stated procedure and original intention was that the abuse was widespread and not controllable by other means. You did set up a bot that could handle some cases short of blacklisting. A few bad accounts should not justify long-term blacklisting, but you know that it routinely does, and the reason is given, "How do we know that spamming won't start up again?" Much of the argument for blacklisting depends on an assumption that there will be too little labor for review, but what this really points to is a need to involve more of the community as well as to set up procedures that are maximally efficient. If you recall, I've suggested that *temporary* blacklisting become *easier*, not harder. If there is a torrent of spam coming in pointing to a site, temporary blacklisting would be part of a response, very fast. With simple procedures for removing the blacklisting. Bots can assist. For example, when a site is not blacklisted, but is (as examiner.com is) a possible spam target, a bot could watch for links from this, possibly do some analysis, and report. The bot control files would require an admin, obviously, but the general community could support with analysis, and with appeal procedure.
• That a site might be spammed, for the reasons stated, doesn't mean that it *will be* spammed, and it might be possible to negotiate with a site. I'm sure examiner.com would not want the site blacklisted, perhaps they'd set rules for their writers. Perhaps they'd exclude links from Wikipedia from what's paid for, or restrict them to special conditions. There is still the RS problem, but I find the issue interesting, it raises broader questions. (For starters, I'd want to see that any "examiner" disclose that; I notice that a prior alleged spammer did exactly that. And was dinged for it. Note that an examiner is probably a subject expert, relatively speaking. The COI rules should apply, which would allow Talk suggestions but not contentious article editing. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Point is, for examiner.com, you don't need to be a professional. The man in the street (except for one minor hurdle) can write documents there, which can range from good researched info to total crap (there is no editorial oversight), link the documents and earn money. This is not about professionals earning money from what they write (and you know how the COI guideline states that), this is about anyone making money with what they write.

This is also not about 'negotiate with the site', this is not only the site owners (if even, one of the spammers may be) spamming the site, this is the man in the street creating a document there and spamming it.

And you are taking WP:AGF to a new level, if an editor is saying "of course I want to link to it to make money, don't you" as being a straw-man/troll like remark.

I don't think it my obligation to link to all discussions, the initial discussion says enough, Hu12 shows the different reasons why, and even while they (or the other 2 editors) did not show active spamming, your remark linking to the ArbCom decision suggests that these three editors (all three admins?) blacklisted solely for that reason. If you would have omitted that link to ArbCom, and not have suggested that this was blacklisted solely on non-reliability reasons, then I would not have come here, you would have gotten a normal 'decline' on the spam-blacklist. But that suggestion of you, linking to ArbCom, suggest that you assume that the three editors blacklisted solely on non-reliability reasons .. I am here, strongly, giving you the advice to avoid all such suggestions, unless you have proof (and that you did not find proof or did not see proof does not mean that it is not there). And to remind you, see WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG#Abd_advised (occasionally, that is in the same arbitration). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you follow discussions, I have explicitly denied a blacklisting request recently where there was some abuse (IMHO, controllable abuse), but where the site is unreliable. Examiner.com is also unreliable, but with the pay-per-view incentive spamming of this site becomes quickly uncontrollable. It is easy to get an established account here, where there is no stop to pull money out of Wikipedia's linking .. and blacklisting all specific cases also has no end, spammers can just change the url of their document and there we go again (that is exactly why redirect sites are blanket blacklisted on meta .. ).

The cart is, a bit, dragging the horse. The goal of the project is content meeting policy. Whether someone gets paid for creating that content or not is secondary. As you know, an examiner.com page might be usable, they exist. How and where is the decision to be made? While the general rule, at this point, would seem to be that examiner.com pages don't meet RS, there are exceptions. Are admins to make all the decisions? That's highly inefficient, concentrating content decisions into the hands of the few admins who work on spam. Blacklisting makes it easier for these admins (and for the spam patrollers), but makes it harder for the content workers. That's backwards. I hope you understand, Beetstra, that my goal is to support all the volunteers, not to favor one set over another. We got involved when I saw an abusive blacklisting, and it was extraordinarily difficult to get that reversed, as you know, and, in fact, the site is still globally blacklisted, and only page-whitelisted here, which means that every usage had to be whitelisted. There would have been many more, I can assure you, if not for my topic ban. Content is still being restricted, effectively, through the blacklist. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

People are not paid to create the content on examiner.com, people create content on examiner.com, and are paid when others follow their link (you, reading that document on examiner.com what you wanted to link earned someone money!). Me writing an article in Nature earns me money (indirectly), but I do not get paid whenever anyone reads the article! You are the one interpreting my remark the wrong way around. You did not understand the argument 'It is easy to get an established account here, where there is no stop to pull money out of Wikipedia's linking' .. if you create a document there, but make sure no-one reads it, you don't earn money .. examiner.com does not give you money to store your data there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Whitelisting (and blacklisting/de-blacklisting) remains a problem. Not many admins want to go there, it is a select few that have to handle it. And it does not change. It is roughly (the admins) Stifle/Hu12/A. B./JzG/me (and maybe a couple more). Questions on WP:AN or WP:AN/I for more help are met with silence (and why, quite correctly JzG said some time ago something along the lines of 'yes, come and help, it is a nice way to get trolled mercilessly'). I'd really like to have more help there, then it would be easier to have admins who were not involved in the blacklisting review the de-blacklisting or whitelisting, but the manpower is scarce.

JzG is no longer an admin, of course, but I see that he's still working on the issues. However, the work of the blacklist/whitelist actually doesn't require admin tools, much, most of the work is in analysis. Actual additions/removals from the lists can be done by any admin, but it's better if they are done by one with experience, because of the damage from some bad regex, as we've seen. I made previous suggestions, but I'll restate it here. We have the opportunity to fix this, Beetstra, and pretty efficiently. If you and I can agree, my guess is that we can bring the community along. I'm roughly representing the more diffuse and uninvolved community, and you can see that this community, particularly the informed part that knows, long-term, wikitheory, is uncomfortable with blacklisting for content control. But we also recognize the problems of spamming. Let's see what we can come up with that might satisfy both sets of concerns!

• Develop whitelisting procedure that is almost automatic approval, when the request is from a registered editor. Procedure might require that editor to declare any COI, and it may require other steps that would be easy, but which would militate against abuse. The whitelist request page would be semiprotected, so only autoconfirmed editors may edit it. An IP or new editor request page would be attached, where IP editors may make requests, and this page would be monitored by volunteers, not admins, who would transfer any requests to the main whitelisting page that they approve, leaving the rest to expire into archive. An IP editor can, of course, make a request for support on the Talk page of any editor. Some Talk pages are semipro'd.... mine often has been, and I have an IP talk page set up for that.... Whitelisting should be fast for an autoconfirmed editor. As to whitelisting wanted by an IP, that might be more difficult, for obvious reasons, but a path should exist that doesn't result in editors shouting "spammer!" at the IP. Frivolous IP requests would simply be ignored. That's why they should be on a separate page. Abusive autoconfirmed editor requests would result in warnings and possibly blocks. That makes them expensive for the spammer. COI editors aren't spammers, as such, but should be handled evenly. There is no harm if COI is acknowledged and behavior is within guidelines. We expect COI editors to have a POV and "push" it.
• Set up blacklist expiration procedures. A permanent blacklisting should require total inappropriateness of *any* linking to the site from Wikipedia. Blacklisting due to spam torrent should be temporary, with step-by-step delisting being routine. That delisting can be and probably should be accompanied by bot monitoring. It's possible that de-escalation of blacklisting would require an editorial request, but that, again, should be almost routine. If there are intermediate steps between blacklisting and no control, it makes the decisions easier, which means that they don't require deep discussion. (The same applies in escalation: warning of editors, addition to monitoring bot control pages, reversion bots, etc.) An admin bot might have a control list that sets expiration date and automates other response -- such as adding regex to a monitoring bot control page when it expires a blacklisting. (So the default when this starts up would be no-expiration, expiration date would apply to new blacklistings as appropriate.)
• Increase awareness that the blacklist is not to be used for content control, per se. That has clearly not penetrated the consciousness of those working on the blacklist.

Still, help is minimal. More would be appreciated. But a) it is quite some work (you see that you need to be up to date, you miss crucial points here), b) it is not easy (the bar does not need to be high for whitelisting, but it should not be completely gone) (again, you need to know what is going on, why things get blacklisted), and c) it is a good recipe to get trolled (or to get into these endless discussions ..).

Whitelisting and de-blacklisting needs to be researched, evaluated, controlled.

Expiry: no! People spam to get money, we 'tried' that (well, it was massive sock-spamming which was stopped with blacklisting, and after half a year an admin removed it without discussion which took only a couple of days for the socks to re-appear and to continue), consensus to add and consensus to remove, that is the way. And keep monitoring. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not the worst, indeed. And at least there is some control. Associated Content, Hulu are worse, indeed. However, if I recall correctly, examiner.com did deliberately try to confuse themselves with other sites with the name 'examiner' in them, which are reliable sources. And for examiner, there is a lot of crap there, and then the rest contains a lot of scraped info, and some of what is left is then useable here as a source. We need more manpower on the whitelist, but this should really be handled on the whitelist, quick, not too much difficulty, though requesters should keep in mind that the info they want to use is reasonably reliable and not easy to replace with something better .. keep the workload low. Until now, after quite some whitelisting requests, there are not many examiner.com links whitelisted. It is not that much.

This is the problem, Beetstra. You and others are making content decisions when you decide to whitelist or not. Technically, it would seem you are not, since you can whitelist and the content still gets rejected. But when you refuse to whitelist based on your judgment of the appropriateness, you are making a content decision. A single link, even if inappropriate, is not spam. Requiring some review of links is one thing, some special process whereby, for example, the editor becomes aware that examiner.com is not the San Francisco Examiner, but requiring that an editor prove usability in an article before being able to assert the edit is another. (However, requiring that a Talk page discussion be opened as a condition for whitelisting might well be appropriate. The point would be to shift content decisions to article talk pages.)

• No, I am not, if I am declining a whitelist it is an editorial decision, I am one of the parties in the discussion of the appropriateness. And it would, again, be good to have more people there. So the discussions get wider. That we are making content decisions on that discussion, I'd like to see an RfC on that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As to examiner.com, something that I didn't expect is fascinating me. The content I've seen, looking through the requests, is quite good, considered on its own. I think that editors want to use these links because they read them as good writing, well-researched and/or informed. (And they also, perhaps, are confused by "examiner." I sense that the name caused me to notch up, a little, my opinion about the importance of the source I wanted to cite in Talk, even though I didn't actually assume it was the SF Examiner) Is it possible that the pay-per-view model is encouraging good content? Would that be surprising? Indeed, consider ordinary RS, newspapers where they have become, essentially, web sites. They have editorial review, still, so they are RS. But what drives them? Page views. That's where their money comes from. And out of that, they pay writers. Do they directly pay writers by page view? Perhaps not, but I bet that a writer who generates more page views is very likely to be paid more. Definitely, there is a problem using examiner.com content, because we may have no way of knowing if a particular article has been reviewed or error-corrected. But the paradox: the content seems generally better than what I see in ordinary newspaper RS. I'm not suggesting any immediate response, though one approach does seem possible: external links. External links need not be reliable source, but should be considered by editorial consensus to be useful to readers. And examiner.com pages might more frequently be usable as external links, for some articles, than as source for fact in the article.

Well, there certainly is good content, as I said. And that is what is requested for whitelisting. But good content can also be good scraped content .. all of it will be there.

Does the pay-per-view also make it a good site .. yes and no. If you are 'smart' you know that if you write a good piece, and get it linked, you will earn more money. On the other hand, if you write a crappy piece and link it wherever you can you also earn money. I think this knife cuts both ways. And that is where whitelisting is coming in. Could use more manpower there, who could examine in whether the content is good, not replaceable, &c. &c., but I said that already.

You name here SF examiner, IIRC with examiner.com, they do try, deliberately, to confuse themselves with that, but you'd have to ask Hu12 for details on that, and that was one of the factors that came up in the blacklisting, or shortly after. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We should well note: Examiner.com articles, at least the ones I've seen, tend to be better than equivalent Wikipedia articles, as far as writing quality is concerned, my overall judgment. (But it's a biased sample, I've only seen articles that someone wanted to cite, already.) More reliable? I don't know, but Wikipedia articles, overall, are not terribly reliable, there is way too much uncontrolled flux. And the writing quality can be truly awful, articles can easily become indiscriminate piles of verifiable facts, badly organized. When are Wikipedia articles as good or better? What I've seen, when they were written by a single editor, relatively expert in the subject, who is also a good writer, and who poured loving attention into the article. PHG, as an example. And he's been in lots of trouble. Great articles, though! --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is all there, and blanket blacklisting indeed keeps that out as well. The solution is easy, get an easier and quicker system for whitelisting (not one without any scrutiny, but still), but that requires manpower, and I know why they are not coming .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

¡Buen provecho! ¡Buen apetito!

Estancia Churrascaria has given you a salmon burrito with bell peppers, red onion, eggs, horseradish, and a mustard cream sauce spiced with cayenne, tarragon, monterey jack cheese and paprika, with guacamole on the side! Salmon burritos satisfy wikihunger, giving you the wikistrength you need to keep body and wikisoul together, and they induce less wikiflatulence than bean burritos. Be assured that this is the highest quality seafood available on the eastern seaboard, not just your ordinary trout.

Estancia Churrascaria le ha dado un es:salmón es:burrito con es:pimientos, es:cebolla roja, es:huevos, es:rábanos, y una crema mostaza salsa condimentada con es:cayenne, es:estragón, es:queso monterrey jack y es:paprika, con es:guacamole del lado! Salmón burritos satisfacer wiki-hambre, dándole la wikistrength necesita conservar cuerpo y wiki-alma juntos, y inducen menos wikiflatulence de burritos de frijoles. Se aseguró que esta es la mayor calidad mariscos disponibles en la costa oriental, no sólo su ordinaria trucha.

this looks like a violation of your ban

It's OK that you comment on The Ghost RfC. But then you went and you made a revert to the article. This looks like you are inserting yourself in the middle of an existing dispute, and you are banned from doing that. Indeed, it looks like you are trying to be the arbiter of how much consensus that text needs to have in order to be in the lead. Please stop that. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time that this ban has been interpreted to prohibit me from making edits to articles. You acknowledge that I'm allowed to comment in polls, and you seem to interpret the RfCs as polls. I agree, and that's why I commented. However, while my edit may have an application to a dispute taking place on the article talk page and at WP:NPOV, my argument for removal was not derived from that discussion, it was based on a plain application of standards for ledes, and it was independent from the dispute, which has mostly been about sourcing standards. It might be noticed that I did not remove text from the body of the article itself, so my removal did not in itself take a position on the issue that has generated so much heat. I could say a great deal more but won't because it would, in fact, be about a factional battle, a "dispute." And that would include wondering why, you, Enric, end up so much concerned about this, and Verbal, who reverted my edit as a ban violation. I'll do all of that off-wiki. Enjoy.

Meanwhile, if any neutral admin wishes to clarify how the ban prevents me from editing articles, as a kind of clear warning so that I can avoid repeating an offense, I will respect the interpretation pending review. As Enric Naval was highly involved in the RfAr which resulted in my "MYOB" ban, he was literally a party, self-named as such, I can't take his warning here as being adequate to establish a violation.

Alternatively, any admin (neutral or not) may warn me that he or she would block me if the offense was repeated, but without the clarification, it won't be helpful, and a block warning like that from an admin involved in dispute with me would violate recusal policy as much as a block. Helpful comments, though, are welcome from anyone, involved or not. --Abd (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)