Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop/Motions

Proposed temporary injunctions

Raul654 is not a party to this case

1) Without prejudice to consideration of future cases or motions, the ArbCom finds that with respect to this Arbitration case, Raul654's administrative conduct (in dealing with Scibaby sockpuppets) is, at best, only very remotely and tangentially relevant. Further, the Committee notes that the introduction of material related to Raul's conduct at this late date constitutes a confusing distraction from the extant case, which is focused on the actions of Abd and William Connolley.

1a) All editors are hereby enjoined from presenting further principles, findings of fact, or remedies regarding Raul's conduct with respect to Scibaby. The ArbCom notes that it will not consider any proposals that deal with Raul's administrative actions with respect to Scibaby.

1b) Clerks are instructed to remove, close, and/or archive any new proposals on the /Workshop page of this arbitration which violate 1a.

1c) Clerks are instructed to remove, close, and/or archive any existing proposals on the /Workshop page of this arbitration which violate 1a.

1d) Clerks are instructed to issue blocks of not less than 24 hours to any parties which violate 1a.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not being a named party does not per se prevent remedies from occuring regarding someone. That being said, it would still need to fall within the scope of this case, which is still being discussed, and the issue of Raul654's admin conduct covers more than just this case. Parties interested in pursuing the overall admin issue should utilize steps in WP:DR in regard to the matter. Note that Raul654 did bring bring the Scibaby issue into the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated earlier today, I do not plan to propose any motions related to Raul654 for a Committee vote. But as a matter of process, it would be highly unusual for the Committee to vote to eliminate someone as a party, so I don't plan to start a vote for this injunction. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur that Raul is not a party to the case - it was my impression that the scope has been defined. I think it would be prudent to remove the material. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have the feeling that at this point, the arbitrators have had enough input on the evidence and workshop pages as to what the case is about. The priority now is to get a proposed decision posted and into voting, which I hope will happen soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Raul was not a named party; Raul was not mentioned in any party's statement prior to opening this Arbitration; the introduction of remedies and, indeed, evidence regarding Raul only occurred very late in this case's process. The attempt to shoehorn Raul into this case is unhelpful, distracting, disruptive, and just plain out of scope. Considering this tangentially-related matter (and I use 'tangentially' quite generously here) will prolong and delay the handling of this already-distended case. Arbs can pick and choose, but 1a is the minimum necessary statement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Purely in the interest of clarifying whether or not Raul should in be included in this case on the technical aspect, I shall quote something I mentioned on a different case talk page.

It is worth noting that the (parties) list isnt exhaustive and therefore, not being on the list does not exempt an editor exempt from being brought into the case.

Therefore, whether not he should included within the scope of this arbitration, is one of qualitative reasoning rather than based on technicalities. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 18:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that we shouldn't be straitjacketed by procedural formalism. The fact that Raul654 wasn't listed a party is nearly irrelevant, except as part of the larger pattern of Raul being out of scope of this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

@FloNight. This motion addresses some of the problems of communications between ArbCom and the community which are raised below. While I appreciate that two Arbitrators have offered their personal statements on this issue, their individual opinions are of limited utility in a case where thirteen Arbitrators will be able to propose motions and cast votes. If I recall correctly (and I haven't checked the history), so far only four Arbs have commented on this page; the community has no way of knowing if the other nine have looked at any of these discussions. As a courtesy to all of the participants in this case, we need to know whether editors proposing and discussing remedies and FoFs surrounding Raul are wasting their time and needlessly expanding an already-bloated case. Perhaps more important, as a matter of fairness the ArbCom should, at this very late stage, be able to decide whether or not it is expanding the scope of the case to include Raul654. He deserves to know whether or not his efforts should be directed at preparing a defense to these backdoor proposals. If the Committee genuinely can't get its act together enough to make a final call on this, then rewrite the proposed motion to exclude Arbitrators; that would at least cut down the noise to proposals which have the support of at least some element of the Committee. I agree that taking this step is procedurally unusual, but I also believe it would be quite helpful. Moreover, it would set a worthwhile precedent to discourage this sort of gaming of the Arbitration process in the future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Question - Where were all the cries of "foul" when Raul654 himself was introducing such findings of fact and proposed remedies against non-named parties? Suddenly we have become a bureaucracy? The committee is free to accept or reject my proposals as they see fit. Finishing the preparation of such a set of proposals for future use while the information is fresh in my mind harms nothing if the committee decides to reject it, but it would be required should the current direction change for some reason in this case. --GoRight (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that GoRight has admitted on WR that his proposals were designed to provoke me. In other words, by his own admission, he was trolling. This is probably the best evidence yet of the need to pass a remedy along the lines of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop#Enforcement_of_GoRight_prohibition_on_participation_in_dispute_resolution_processes_other_than_his_own Raul654 (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Who is GoRight in this posting, and where does he "has admitt...on WR that his proposals were designed to provoke" you? Please provide specific edit details.

What are the rules about editors using evidence outside of wikipedia? Ikip (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Username "GoRight" -- I will admit that the proposal was indeed devised and suggested because of it's likely targeted effect on Raul under the circumstances. Raul654 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression you can't post this stuff on wiki, but Wikipedia:Correspondence_off-wiki seems to contradict this. Ikip (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Goright made this correction today:

UPDATE: After rereading this I guess I better clarify that "likely targeted effect" can be interpreted as "likely to reign in Raul's excesses while allowing him to continue his work as an administrator and checkuser". I guess trying to be terse can sometimes be a problem in terms of giving a misleading impression.

The whole original statment seems rather ambigous. Ikip (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not ambiguous at all. the proposal was indeed devised and suggested because of it's likely targeted effect on Raul - he admits he posted inflammatory proposals to get a reaction of out me. In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional or disciplinary response - Troll (Internet). His actions were trolling by simple definition. And if you believe his self-serving correction, which he only posted after I pointed out his comment here, then I have a bridge to sell you. Raul654 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're stretching. "Likely targeted effect" could mean any number of things. ArbCom declaring that your blocking millions of IPs to stop Scibaby is overkill, for example, would be a targeted effect on you. Oren0 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone believes Oren's nonsensical explanation, I have an even bigger bridge to sell you. Raul654 (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Abd

Proposed principles

Consensus is fundamental to NPOV

1) The surest sign that neutral text has been found is that all reasonable editors, understanding guidelines and policy, will agree or accept it, regardless of personal POV. Where necessary, and without compromising our fundamental principles, we need take extraordinary care that this consensus is discovered, documented, and maintained, which includes supporting process for consensus to shift and grow non-disruptively.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The first sentence is basically right, although it is overly optimistic to anticipate that unanimous agreement among even "reasonable editors" can be reached in every case. It also is true that consensus can change over time, but beyond that, I don't understand the second sentence. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not persuaded that this is a useful principle, particularly the second part, which seems overly focused on the process of "discovering" consensus than it is in writing NPOV content. Risker (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. This cannot be overemphasized, it was part of the founding vision of Wikipedia. Where we actively pursue true consensus, not merely a rough consensus that excludes minority views, we settle disputes and broaden the community which has an interest in stability, instead of motivating and maintaining disruption. --Abd (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad. Thanks. Unanimous agreement isn't necessary, but is desirable. In fact, consensus organizations which establish good process find that complete agreement is more attainable than expected, but my own conclusion from many years of experience is that majority rule is an important operating principle, necessary for efficiency, that becomes damaging when the strong desirability of full consensus is overlooked. When there is maximized consensus, long-term efficiency is maximized. It's established that consensus can change, but how is not well established. While we may assert some kind of abstract NPOV principle, we have no way of objectively measuring it except through the measure of consensus. If a consensus exists at one time, but is not documented, if the evidence and arguments for the consensus haven't been made explicit and accessible, there is no guidance for the future except an assumption that existing text is "consensus," and the boulder must roll inevitably down the hill, and we will have to push it up again, which is so much work that we often prefer to revert and block a dissident, instead of engaging and recruiting the new editor to help extend consensus by reviewing the basis for it and pointing out, if possible, any defects. --Abd (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad, IMO, Abd means in his second sentence that we should held terribly long discussions with dozens of editors involved, so we can then measure consensus using some unnecessarily complicated rule that Abd wants to try out in wikipedia. All of this, of course, with Abd being the one in charge of the whole process. This is what he tried to do with his last poll right before he was banned from CF. (see below) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This preposterous assumption is an example of what I've faced for five months at Cold fusion, raw ABF. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I couldn't control it if I wanted to, and I don't, not even if the community demanded it, and inefficient discussion would entirely defeat the purpose and would simply fail.

Enric Naval: That was hardly a productive comment. Please limit discussion on arbitration pages to constructive additions only. AGK 03:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is what Abd means with that sentence, altough he would have chosen a very different wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AGK, you are right, my uncivil wording was really inadequate,and it wasn't productive. NewYorkBrad deserves a better explanation (and he doesn't know the context, so he probably doesn't even know what I am talking about). I striked it out and I will make a proper explanation in a couple of hours. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewording: Shortly before being banned, Abd was Hipocrite were making competing polls. Abd tried to make a poll based in Range voting, and tried to merge two polls in one. He was heavily criticized for moving votes around, modifying the poll at mid-polling, using too complicated rules, WP:OWNership issues, etc, and was told to stop touching the poll and even to drop it completely. His behaviour at the poll was part of what triggered his ban. Despite all this, he thinks that the poll was a success, and now he is here making proposals of measuring consensus without giving any acknowledgement or indication that he was ever heavily criticized for his methods. Editors who saw their suggestions and criticims ignored during and after that poll are now understandibly wary of him ever handling any measurement of consensus, since they assume that Abd will not listen to them. (Whether that assumption is warranted is something that deserves a separate discussion, the point here is that Abd has lost the trust of many editors in measurement of consensus) His second sentence looks a lot like what he did in that poll.

Also, Risker points out the sentence is more focused in the process than in the final result. Abd has a long history of supporting new processes of discovering consensus, as he has always been interested in voting systems (yeah, I know, I have to prove this in the evidence section, I will link here when it's done) with his support of Wikipedia:Delegable proxy and his editing in relatively obscure voting systems like Instant-runoff voting or Approval voting, which he edited heavily before getting interested in cold fusion (Abd's edit count) (Abd used Range voting in the poll, and Approval voting is a type of range voting). This makes me fear that Abd is more interested in experimenting with measurement of democratic votes than in measuring WP:CONSENSUS consensus by wikipedia standards. There are more indications that make me think this, but it will be better if I put them into the Evidence page and link them here later. Also, part of a trend where process is put over results, so not an isolated incident that is being blown out of proportion. Posting in talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mathsci. This proposal is an expansion on and explanation of the five, not a substitute for them. I thank Mathsci for pointing to the essay and the MfD, which was, when MfD'd, indeed a rant, though in the process of conversion to one more neutral and less topical, with participation and comment from others invited. The MfD, Mathsci nominating, snowed Keep; some of the criticism at the time was justified and may have been addressed, but I'm not claiming it's ready for WP space. A move is not a decision I will make. --Abd (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to MastCell. Yes, that's a problem, but it doesn't relate to the desirability of consensus. If we exclude editors without adequate opportunity for them to participate, if they are met with hostility and threats and blocks, most will become, if they were not before, "unreasonable." They may create, as Scibaby did, as many as 300 sock puppets. We don't know if he would have been reasonable if welcomed and channeled toward constructive work on what I call the "backstory," with an opportunity to participate in expansion of consensus, and where intrinsic unreasonableness, if present, would have become obvious, and he'd then have been rejected, not only by those opposed to him in POV, but by the whole community, including supporters of his POV and those neutral. Once we understand that consensus only begins with "rough consensus," and that when we stop there, we may be institutionalizing disruption, we will confine stern response to necessity. It only takes two to discuss, not dozens, and discussion of changes can expand from there as needed. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd's response to WMC is here: [1] (diff link replacing collapse box 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm returning this comment, but collapsed, because obviously it was too long for WMC's tastes, and collapse is one standard response to claims that comments are too long, rambling, or off-topic. In time, I will bring out of collapse a summary of what's most important about this comment. Meanwhile, it is, in fact, on-topic, in my opinion, and it should be readily accessible to the arbitrators who eventually must go over this mess, hence it should remain here. Arbitrators will decide whether to read it or not.

--Abd (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that explains at least part of the edit warring ([2][3][4][5]): WMC believes that this is his section. Take a look at where this is: Proposals by Abd. And this does make clear what the case is about: WMC develops some opinion, and then ignores all rules to implement it. Sometimes it's brilliant, that's why we have IAR. But sometimes it is ... not. And he hasn't learned how to back down quickly. --Abd (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject In case it wasn't clear. Second sentence is plain not good. Also, assuming that "all reasonable editors" will agree to a text is unrealistic. Some editors disagree deeply with what the sources say about the topic they like/hate, so it's imposible that they are happy about any text that actually reflects the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Redacted proposal to strike second sentence. That will be made as a separate proposal. The important part was the first sentence! --Abd (talk) 02:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note There is a straw man argument here, from Enric, above. No assumption that "all reasonable editors will agree" is necessary or proposed. All that is stated is that this, if it happens, is the surest sign of NPOV; the surest sign may not be attainable within practical limits. If we posit two alternative texts, one which is considered neutral by 99% of editors, and one which is considered neutral by 100% of editors, the latter is more neutral. How we would move from 99% NPOV to 100% is a structural and process problem, and the ease or difficulty of this has no effect on its desirability. In arguing against this, usually critics suggest that the 99% of editors have to give up something to please the remaining 1%. That's a false assumption that contradicts the conditions of the claim. If 100% of editors agree that a text is neutral, we are constrained to consider that text unquestionably neutral, since we all agree on it (until someone objects!). If it's only 99%, the 99% are satisfied, sure, and we cannot expect them to be exercised to search for better text; but, in reality, it only takes one editor from the 99% and one from the 1% to work on a compromise. One editor working with one other editor. Both self-selected or otherwise volunteering. Thus the claims about "wearing out editors" are spurious. If an editor with a minority idea can't find anyone willing to discuss it, that's the end of it until the situation changes. This is connected with the proposal for not debating unsupported proposals. If you feel you must "correct" everything that is "wrong," then you will be irritated by proposals that are clearly "against consensus" and you will ultimately be motivated to stop such "disruption," especially if it is repeated, which tends to happen when nobody listens. Rather, shunting minority proposals that are not close to adoption to subpages or otherwise confining them, but encouraging and allowing them, keeps the door open to possible improvements in consensus and thus in certainty of neutrality, without irritating the majority. If I have some wild-hair idea, and someone moves it to a Wild Hair Idea subpage, all it would take is another involved editor moving it back to prove that it's not isolated, at least, or we could have a page for Emerging Ideas. As our scale increases, there can be increasing refinements to this. I'd be silly, however, to personally edit war to move that proposal back to the top level talk page. Basically, if I can't find any support, it is a Wild Hair Idea, and I'm quite prepared to accept that some of my ideas, no matter how Excellent (or otherwise!) are not going to be accepted, and they might as well be on the Wild Hair Idea subpage until they find some sympathy. In general, minorities understand that they are minorities until it gets close.
• Please see the 2003 mailing list post by Jimbo at [6]. While that's old, Jimbo's claims there that those holding fringe science views will agree that the view is considered fringe by a majority of scientists, assuming there is source for that (and maybe even if there is not), and I can confirm that from many years of experience with consensus process. See also the MeatBall wiki pages that are external links from WP:NPOV. Finding neutral text is often just a matter of finding accurate and neutral framing. I am convinced that the 2004 DoE report on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (Cold fusion) came to radically different conclusions, in the body of the report, than did the 1989 panel, but I'd be stupid to argue against text stating that the report claims to have come to the same conclusion as 1989. And the apparent contradiction is resolved if we understand that the bureaucrat making that comment was concerned about funding decisions, the purpose for both panels, and, for that, the conclusion was practically identical. (Modest funding under existing programs.) The position on the science, though, was radically different, and all this could be described in NPOV text, reliably sourced and verifiable, in an article on the history of Cold fusion. Conflicts arise particularly when minority views are entirely excluded, even though reliable source exists for them, and this is often done by the cabal, on the argument of undue weight. Jimbo, in the cited mail, addresses this, suggesting subarticles, an approach that the cabal generally opposes, because it would allow full expression of fringe theories, to the extent that they are covered by reliable source, and the cabal generally seeks to repress fringe content, not to present and balance it. --Abd (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not the way most WP articles are written and not helpful as a substitute for WP:Five pillars. No need to transfer extracts of the userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing onto this page: it was already severely criticized in the MfD by multiple users. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Although their purpose is unclear, Abd's second sentence in the proposal and his userspace essay might be an attempt to justify the pushing of a fringe viewpoint by slowly tiring out mainstream (= majority point of view) editors. Mathsci (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Not to put too fine a point on it, but I believe that the problem here has been in parsing the definition of "reasonable editors". MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject. This kind of wooly principle has become a staple of arbcom announcements, and this one, to quote from Macbeth, is "... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS are already policies, and MathSci has already mentioned the WP:FIVEPILLARS. The community has already established policy, and that is not a job for anyone else. Unless there happens to be a philosopher king lying around. Verbal chat 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
• Curious that Abd chooses to use the workshop for more grandstanding rather then supplying evidence for arbcom to look at. If I were cynical I'd suggest that this case has been cooked up to give them an opportunity to promote their own agenda rather then a genuine disagreement where dispute resolution is required. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC) - struck per instructions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  Spartaz, this page (and this section in particular) is for the discussion of the proposed principle, not for making unfounded speculation as to the motives of those involved. Please strike your comment and refrain from making further statements of this nature. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC) (later edit: Thank you for your understanding.)

• Reject. Poorly written and to me, over analyzed. Let's stick with the way we already do consensus, not this new way that has been refused. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject. For one, useful consensus is not typically "discovered", it is constructed. You can only discover the lowest common denominator. NPOV is not achieved by accommodating each and every opinion, but by weighting arguments and sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject per Stephan. Raul654 (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per NPOV. The second sentence seems to me to mean that we should make an intense effort to find NPOV wording (as opposed to giving up and accepting wording that is acceptable from many, but not all, significant POVs). Risker, this principle is about writing NPOV content. It's about finding NPOV content via a process of discussion and consensus among editors. As I quote Abd on my userpage, "Individual opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Enric Naval who said "Some editors disagree deeply with what the sources say about the topic they like/hate, so it's imposible that they are happy about any text that actually reflects the sources". You seem to ignore the possibility that there are editors who are willing to write NPOV text based on the sources rather than on their own personal beliefs. Proponents of a fringe theory may be happy when they see the theory described accurately (without presenting it as true) in proportion to its degree of prominence in the sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject WP:NPOV explicitly rejects this line of argument; viz. "The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." (emphasis added) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• WP:IAR explicitly rejects the idea that we are bound by any policy. May I assume that the text of WP:NPOV is consensus? If consensus changed, could it say something different? And if the Foundation froze that page and that text and insisted on it, what could a consensus of editors -- i.e. all or most of them -- do? I'd suggest it would be singularly foolish for the Foundation to do that, they wouldn't, that simple. Boris's opinion, in religion, would be called "fundamentalist." It's the idea that policies exist in the abstract and we are all bound to follow them, no interpretation is necessary. In fact, there is always interpretation, decisions about where to draw the line, how to satisfy competing "principles," and the only way to make these boundary decisions is through a decision-making process, and the best and least disruptive guide for that process is editorial consensus. We have no other guide except that used by Boris and the rest of the cabal: their own factional position, considered by them fundamental and not a matter of interpretation. Editorial consensus will never reverse "the principles on which these policies are founded," because those principles are fundamentally sound, consensus is always wiser than any individual (it must be, if it's a deliberated consensus!), and the cabal, in fact, disagrees with and frustrates those fundamental principles. If it followed them, we'd have no problem, though we'd certainly still have plenty of debate. Constructive debate, productive debate, and, indeed, efficient debate. Not this crap over a proposed principle that ought to be noncontroversial! (But it's only proposed because there is, indeed, disagreement with it, which is why it's important it be stated by ArbComm.) --Abd (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• BTW, that was a nice example of wikilawyering, Boris, thanks. "Editors' consensus" means, in that context, a local consensus, not a broad one. Jimbo and the WMF would not resist a coherent, broad consensus, they'd be stupid not to respect it, or, to be more accurate, there would have to be a damn good reason. Because they could, if they did resist it, see an immediate loss of most of the editorial labor, and most of the small donations, and if we were capable of forming a coherent consensus (we aren't yet, except by osmosis, which takes too long), we could start our own damn wiki, practically overnight, beginning with all the content of this one, practically nothing lost, and no liabilities, and with the funding and labor immediately available. Ain't gonna happen, even if we develop the structures that could do it, because consensus is wiser than that, and so are Jimbo and the board. Jimbo, I'm sure, understands exactly what I'm saying, whether you do or not.--Abd (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly, this just calls for calling everybody who will not follow a certain side of the outcome an 'unreasonable editor', and voilá, you have the consensus that you want (and guess what, the other half of the editors do the same and have their version of consensus). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As Dirk and others point out, the statement is highly judgmental. The use of "reasonable" is perjorative with regard to consensus. If an edit is made to state the moon is made of cream cheese, the majority agree, consensus gained that way, who precisely is "reasonable". Indeed, what does "reasonable" mean in this context? Those who want accuracy are "unreasonable"? Minkythecat (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Broadening of consensus is always desirable

2) While full unanimity on text may be unattainable, maximization beyond rough consensus is always desirable, provided that it can be done efficiently. Tendentious debate involving unwilling editors is to be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'll get to how to do this below. Organizations that depend on unity for maximum function have learned to take extraordinary measures to satisfy the last hold-out, but, of course, there are practical limits. The key is to leave process open so that isolated disagreement can be channeled into small-scale, non-disruptive discussions between willing editors, where a new idea can be considered without requiring a larger community to immediately take it on. --Abd (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose Extremely poorly drafted proposal which has little or nothing to do with wikipedia policies. Mathsci (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is not an exercise in experimental democracy and consensus does not mean that generally supported positions can be filibustered out by stubborn editors holding out on a fringe view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, you want to exclude again people from debate, because they do not support a certain view: a) full unanimity would be possible if the above passes, you just call the 'others' unreasonable; b) remove unwilling editors does the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support This seems obvious and clearly a core part of achieivng WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. This seems to be information-free. Logically, the header says something different from the body, and the body is so circumspect that its essentially empty. Was is "efficiently"? What is "tendentious debate"? And is it OK if "unwilling editors" are excluded? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as written Not understandable as presently written. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. One of Abd's other proposals below, "Don't debate proposals with no support", demonstrates one way of implementing this. This seems an obvious principle, essentially consensus and NPOV; balance is provided; the last sentence addresses a concern raised by Abd's detractors; and I don't understand the oppose rationales given, except Beetstra's (per which I decided to put "support" rather than "strong support"). It seems contradictory to me that Mathsci and Spartaz oppose this principle, which contains "Tendentious debate involving unwilling editors is to be avoided", yet at the same time suppport the proposed remedy "Abd banned". (Note to avoid misinterpretation: I don't consider Abd's editing to be "tendentious".) Do these editors believe that full unanimity is always attainable? Or that achieving more than mere rough consensus is not desirable? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Spartaz. Raul654 (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Waffly, partially meaningless / pointless. There's no definition for the boundary cases, hence the proposal is well meaning but hardly enforcable. Minkythecat (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't debate proposals with no support

3) When a proposal or article talk page comment is made, editors should need not argue against it or reject it until it has received support from at least one other editor, beyond noting objection if needed. That objection need not be explained, and often should not it's a good idea not to, because that may encourage useless debate. "I'd object to that, but if anyone else supports it, we can discuss it," is civil and sufficient.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, revised argument. This is proposed as advice; one of the situations where following this advice would be beneficial is with "wall-of-text" proposals on article Talk pages. By not debating or objecting to such a proposal, if, indeed, it is useless, the proposal is not thereby accepted, and if the editor edits the article according to it, while the editor may claim "discussion," if there was no response that is only a low-level defense, especially if the proposal was not clear and sufficiently succinct. Arguing with a proposal encourages counter-argument, and this can go on endlessly. The proof is in article edits; Talk page discussion is a device to improve consensus but does not control. If an edit is reverted, there is some obligation to explain why in Talk, and that a refutation of this "why" may be buried somewhere in prior discussion is moot. We are ordinarily not obligated to read prior discussion, especially if it is long and confusing. I edited the original proposal to change "should not" to "need not" which closer reflects the advisory intention. --Abd (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

original argument by Abd, a somewhat different approach

Proposed This is basic deliberative process, the requirement that a motion be seconded before being debated. Centuries ago, peer decision-making bodies learned that it is a phenomenal waste of time to debate proposals that have no support except from the one proposing it. If an editor proposes an outrageous edit to an article, objecting is in order, but arguing against the edit, unless the group is small and congenial, is a waste of time. If nobody supports the proposal but the proposer, there is no need to waste time arguing against it, and doing so then invites counter-argument; plus the argument against the proposal may go too far, drawing in another editor to disagree with it, and on and on, in an all-too-familiar sequence. In this case, I've been accused of writing "wall-of-text" comments on Talk, which are only a problem if editors feel obligated to read and respond to them. It's asserted that "nobody reads these." That's not true, but if it were, then ignoring them would be perfectly fine; at most, if it seems that some immanent and harmful action is to be taken, the very fact that I proposed it on Talk, with a too-long explanation, would be no defense against being reverted, only, possibly, against some claim that I edited without discussion. I can't demand that anyone discuss anything, and editors forfeit no rights by not responding to moot -- unseconded -- proposals. If we could establish an understanding of this principle in the community, we might avoid half the disruption we see. We'd also become more tolerant of long rants, because we can ignore them or collapse them or fast-archive them, especially if no real discussion results. --Abd (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

reply to Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Sigh. This is not proposed as a rule to be enforced, not a "requirement," but a suggestion, advice if you will, that could avoid a lot of the crap we've seen. There is no "bureaucracy" involved, none. It's relevant to this case because much of the objection to "walls of text" comes from a belief that it's necessary to respond to anything one disagrees with. If we knew that ArbComm would not consider a proposal here that wasn't seconded, however, we could save a whole lotta disruption, reducing the work load on arbitrators. (An arbitrator could second, and if no arbitrator is willing to do that, well, how much chance is that proposal going to have to pass? "Second," by the way, doesn't mean, necessarily, "support," it means, "worth considering.")

Comment by others:

Oppose Enforcing Robert's Rules of Order ("the requirement that a motion be seconded before being debated") certainly violates the spirit of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, if not the letter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm experiencing a bout of cognitive dissonance in reconciling your initial reference to "the requirement that a motion be seconded" and your followup statement "This is not proposed as a rule to be enforced, not a 'requirement'". Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned formal deliberative process where that is, indeed, a requirement. We don't do requirements here, usually. But that doesn't mean that waiting for a second becomes stupid. It's still efficient, and editors who complain about wall-of-text really should consider this one. If nobody reads it, why bother complaining? Think it's too much? Collapse it, letting anyone who wants to read it, read it, but keeping the page clean. The section header should be kept out of collapse so that it remains in the table of contents, generally. --Abd (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Incompatible with Wikipedia culture and practice (which even now often sees "nobody objected when I proposed it on talk" style arguments). It might be a good idea for Wikipedia 2.0, thoughAfter minimal thought, not even that. Such a rule would really encourage traveling cabals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Not how wikipedia works. Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose We don't do this and I can't see why we should either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems to be a reflection of my comments "dear wise one" that you commented on paragraph starting with "Crohnie, please read what I write carefully." I will let you all read Abd's comments. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

OpposeComment (after change), if someone suggests an improvement on a talkpage, that improvement can immediately be implemented, as no-one is allowed to oppose to it, and no-one is allowed to discuss it as long as there is no second support for it? Or do you want to say now, that no-one is allowed to be bold in improving an article, because it first has to be discussed on the talkpage, and such a discussion may never take place if that one person will never get a support? Dangerous draft, this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, that's a preposterous interpretation of the proposal. There is nothing to prevent an editor from, elsewhere, discussing the proposal to find a second, either before or after making it. It already happens frequently that editors make a proposal and nobody replies. So? "no one is allowed" isn't what's proposed. You want to discuss it, fine. But don't then blame the proposer for back and forth debate that then ensues, and that, if there was no support even to discuss it, wasn't needed. This proposal doesn't change our process, if passed, it might nudge our process toward efficience, or it might simply allow some editors to more efficiently use their own time. The big point is that if you are inclined to disagree with a proposal and not inclined to think it needs discussion, jumping in to disagree with it will be likely to encourage counter-argument, but you remain free to do so if you think it will help something. If you have concluded that an editor is tendentious, though, it's just tossing fuel on the fire if you are right.

I wrote above that, if it was important to express objection, simply stating "I object to this," without argument, was enough. That's not an argument, it's a position. Discussion on a talk page is not required before making a bold edit. If one is reverted, properly the reverting editor will explain the reversion, but it might be very simple, such as "we don't have consensus for that." If we consider the first edit a "motion," then the reversion is an "objection." What's clear is that if an editor never gets any support, there is an impasse. If the proposer cannot find any support, and opposition exists, the presumption is usually status quo. If there has been no response, the proposer might consider refactoring the proposal, making it more succinct or approachable, you can do that with comments with no response. Or the proposer might look at article history and find possibly interested editors and approach them individually. Or might go to the Talk for the one objecting and ask why, and it then can become a two-person negotiation (or the editor can be asked to stop). Nothing is gained by arguing against an unseconded proposal, except in the situation where one actually educates the proposer to drop it because it's truly a bad idea. That can be done, sometimes, but if the proponent thinks of the opposition as biased or ignorant, it almost never works.

It's also apparently easy to misunderstand this proposal as discouraging discussion. Discussion is the equivalent in deliberative process of meeting in committee or as the "committee of the whole," where brainstorming is normal. However, what I have in mind with this proposal is situations where the rapport for that doesn't exist. If you imagine that you must argue against every proposal from the minority, you will then come to resent those proposals, because they will waste your time, over and over. What this suggests is that you might be partly responsible for that waste through a belief that you must answer. Answering dumb proposals in Talk is not required, and might even be better not done, especially if you can't do it nicely. --Abd (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you rewrote the proposal, and now it reads much better. I don't oppose anymore (strikethrough applied), but I don't see too much utility.

As an explanation: The 'should' in the first sentence in the original could give the following situation: a) I propose something really silly ("grass is orange!"), b) you read it, and think, "this is really silly", and give ":I'd object to that, but if anyone else supports it, we can discuss it. ~~~~". Indeed, friendly and sufficient .. but .. ":I'd object to that, because when I walk outside, I see the cows and they all eat green grass. And ... Green is generally the colour of grass, because of the compounds in it that convert carbon dioxide and water to sugar are green (they absorb at ..). blah blah blah. But if anyone else supports it, we can discuss it. ~~~~" would initiate discussion, even if there is no support, and you give an explanation etc. etc. Maybe I am a 2nd year primary school kid, and I would be very gratefull for the full explanation (though mine here might be a bit too far ..). The former action would not get that response, I might even react "What are you opposing against, ****, when I walk here through my garden, all my grass is orange-like. I don't understand why my goat was dying. You unhelpful ***!". Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support. I'm starting to warm to this idea. I'm biassed against it because I felt very frustrated when I ran up against something similar in the WP:ATT dispute here (two consecutive threads). Essentially, this idea gives a bit more weight to keeping an older version. I can see it being useful in situations (as sometimes occur) where an enthusiastic, creative and hardworking editor generates large amounts of new article text which is opposed by others who don't really have time to look at it in detail or provide complete rationales for rejecting it. It would require expansionists to keep an eye on the talk page (or search back through the talk page archives) for proposals they might support, but it would free up status-quo-ists to keep their thumbs on good articles without too much effort, which could be useful in situations such as with this frustrated expert. At the Circumcision article, for example, I feel that I put a lot of effort into it in the past and now just want to keep an eye on it without spending a lot of time, so requiring a seconder before I have to explain (again?) why I oppose some extensive change can be a plus. Of course, it doesn't prevent all change, nor would I want it to; need to avoid WP:OWN.
  As I understand it, this would allow a bold edit and if nothing further happens, it stays. If the edit is reverted without a real rationale, just "please get consensus before making this change", and the first editor explains why they want the change but nobody answers, this would mean they can't put the edit in. That's where I'm not sure I support it: perhaps they deserve an explanation of why their edit is opposed (per "help the clueless" below). But maybe that's OK, provided it's documented as a standard guideline or essay so people know it isn't being applied only to them. Perhaps it could be a modification of the WP:BRD essay. If a second person supports the edit then usual processes for discussion and consensus apply.
  This would be one way to solve the problem Crohnie and Enric Naval have raised about feeling obligated to read long posts.☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given the proposer rages endlessly against a cabal that isn't really a cabal but may as well be called a cabal rather than cabal lite, this proposal merely means more cabal-esque factions will appear, seconding proposed edits. Equally, how exactly does it help the project? Someone makes a proposal, no-one even has the decency to reply due to it not being seconded... seems a pretty odd proposal from Abd, given discussion / debate springs from opposition. How exactly does it work - someone wants to make an edit. Puts it on talk page. No-one argues against as it's not been seconded. No-one seconds as not really interested too much / find it inoffensive / don't feel the need to support or oppose. Suggestion then remains in limbo ad infinitum, proposer thinks "sod this for a laugh, I'm off to play world of warcraft". Minkythecat (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Help the clueless

4) If an editor makes a clueless proposal, or attempts to contradict an established consensus, suggest that the editor try to identify an involved editor willing to discuss it and, on the one hand, help the editor to understand the consensus, and, on the other, to be an ear to consider possible changes to consensus. If possible, refer the editor to an involved editor with a similar POV, one who has been part of forming the existing consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed We might avoid half the current blocked editor rate if we did this. For full value for this, it's assumed that we actually do have broad consensus on articles, so that responsible and reasonable editors with various POVs are available. But all it takes to work is editors willing to listen and sympathetically explain. If there is one with the new editor's POV, we might see this: "Yes, I know that what you are saying is True (TM), but this is an encyclopedia, and facts reported here must be verifiable and well-established. We will just have to be patient, because, you know, Truth(TM) will out, and if it doesn't, well, Wikipedia isn't going to fix it. If you try to put that text in the article, and insist, it will destabilize the consensus, which we carefully and with much work negotiated to make sure that it was fair to our FringeTruth(TM), and, since there are more of them than us, we will Lose(TM) and we may end up with less not more. Hence if you try to do that, I'd have to report you to a noticeboard. However, here is what we can do ... there is room for a subarticle on RecentDiscoveryFavoringTheTruth(TM), there has been reliable source on it, and I don't have time to research and write it. How about you do that and bring the material to me for review? It's usually a lot easier to clean something up and try to make it compatible with consensus than to do the original work. Besides, look around, try doing some Recent Changes patrolling, get some experience helping with Other Stuff than Our Important Topic, become familiar with how this place works. If you respect it, it's a very tolerant community, there is a lot of room here." --Abd (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. A completely batty suggestion and not at all how wikipedia functions. Editors rarely self-identify as clueless. Abd is wasting time with suggestions like this. Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Then don't waste your time responding to it! No self-identification is involved in what is proposed, so the response is ... batty. --Abd (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose What exactly has this to do with this case? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an extension of the prior proposal, how to deal with editors who post rambling comments.--Abd (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment, I can't be for or against, what on earth does all of the above mean please? Maybe I am dense, I don't get it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally in line with the disregard of unreasonable editors (vide supra), unwilling editors (vide supra) and the view that someone first has to find support before discussing a change. In violation of WP:BOLD, I would say. Oppose. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do find it offensive that what is proposed is misstated to oppose it. But this whole discussion is an example of what's being suggested above about "seconding." What is being discussed is article Talk, and a very common claim that there is a problem with "POV-pushing" in Talk. In fact, we restrict COI editors to Talk precisely because we expect them to push a POV, but we dislike banning them because they are often experts on some aspect of the field of the article. What I'm trying to describe are methods of addressing the problems without banning the editor; most of those commenting here very readily fall back on the ban as a way to deal with what this is suggesting be handled differently.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) (I think).

Well, Abd, if the opposition comes from 'misstating', then maybe it is just not clear? Are you arguing here that 'all this opposition is crap, because they do not understand me, so actually, this proposal should pass'?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent advice. Essentially, this encourages involved editors to act in a mediator-like role, and the more of that the better. This fits in with the proposal above about requiring seconders, and frees up Majority POV-supporters not to have to respond to endless messages, while avoiding having to ban anyone. Mathsci, it's not about self-identifying as clueless; the advice is to those who see others as clueless. Abd, in case the editors in question might see links to this idea as part of the discussion of their situation, consider using a more charitable word than "clueless". Beetstra, does this proposal look any better to you if you consider it as an alternative to banning rather than as an alternative to extensive discussion with the editor? I see this, along with the proposal above, as a way to allow editors representing minority POVs to continue to have some influence on an article without exhausting the other editors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose So, somebody wanting to make a POV proposal against consensus should consult someone with the same POV. Holy cabal, batman! Minkythecat (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrative recusal upon claim

5) Absent emergency or specific duty, an administrator should not insist upon the right to use tools when involvement has been claimed, but should recuse. Recusal does not mean "unblock" or "unprotect" or "revert that edit under protection." It means abstinence from future action. An administrator seeing new disruption caused by an editor who has claimed involvement should take this to a noticeboard, disclosing the reason for recusal. Ignore all rules continues to apply, if serious harm will be caused to the project by failing to immediately respond, for example, involvement should not prevent an admin from use of tools, but the admin should promptly disclose the action on a noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed This one has been the subject of much comment in previous ArbComm cases over recusal failure. The argument has been that, then, anyone who is blocked will try to wikilawyer out of it by claiming involvement. However, this principle is useless for getting unblocked, for the admin can just say, "Because you have objected, I recuse. Here is how you can request unblock. Good luck." Recusal is an abstinence from action, not an undoing of action. And if an editor claims bias on the part of a series of admins, goodbye editor, the last block will be indef and there will be nobody willing to unblock. There is a boundary situation: an admin warns an editor, saying, if you repeat that, I'll block you. The editor says "You're biased, you *****." Can the admin block the editor. Yes. But not for saying *****, and only for repeating the prohibited action, and nothing beyond that. Basically, the admin could have simply blocked instead of warning, and should not lose the ability to protect the project by warning instead of blocking. Because bias has been alleged, the admin should probably report the block to AN/I, stating recusal from further action. While a closing admin for a discussion should be uninvolved, involvement is not created simply by an accusation, and I suggest that admins specifically accused of involvement routinely recuse because that is the least disruptive and simplest procedure, and because it preserves not only neutrality of administrative action, but appearance of it as well. Appearances count.

extended comment by Abd

Anecdote: I was blocked by Iridescent last August. For a good example of how to do it, take a look at the sequence there. She concluded I was attacking Fritzpoll. (I think she was incorrect, but that doesn't matter, she believed it, and she was, in fact, obligated to act on that belief.) She blocked me, indef, but wrote "indef until this is sorted out" or something like that, and then she recused from any further involvement. What that left me with was no complaint against her of any substance. It was now between me and the community. Recusal works to defuse and depersonalize disputes. Consider what would have happened in this case if WMC had, instead of declaring a ban based on no specific violating behavior, had warned me, "I consider your editing at Cold fusion disruptive, if you continue disruption, I'll block you." He had no right to block me for non-disruptive edits, and he could not create that right by the device of declaring a ban. But the warning I just mentioned, he could certainly give. Even though I already considered him involved, I doubt that I'd have done anything about this, no noticeboard, I'd have considered it a mere threat, and if I edit disruptively, it goes without saying that I can be blocked. I could take it as a courtesy notice. If he'd blocked me, my behavior would have become the issue, especially if he then recused. (In any case, unblock requests based on claims of admin involvement are seriously stupid. It's actually irrelevant to the unblock. Politically, it can be tricky, admins like to see admission of error, and if the editor didn't make any mistakes, it is actually harder to argue for unblock. But an involved admin can make a good block, so involvement is never an unblock argument, the question with block and unblock, as with all issues, is the welfare of the project.) The block would have been reviewed, without disruption, by a neutral admin, presumably, from an unblock template, unless it was a short block (I did not bother asking for unblock from the 24-hour block WMC had laid on me, I don't create disruption over a mere minor delay.) Failure to recuse can cause enormous disruption, and this RfAr is a case in point. Administrators who do not understand recusal policy should be desysopped, they are quite dangerous. I've very concerned about the number of admins who have steadily argued against the policy. Freedom of speech is great, but when someone is being entrusted with tools, we can and should consider their positions on how tools are used. It may be time for ArbComm to reprimand and warn administrators who argue against sensible recusal policy, that they can lose the privileges, and when admins argue this way before ArbComm, it should not be ignored.

General response to comments. It is completely predictable that factional editors accustomed to administrative support from allied administrators, or those administrators themselves, would oppose this. The claim that this comes out of my personal desire for protection is pure ABF, and silly. I could be the worst possible editor and the most skilled wikilawyer, yet this principle would stand, and would be useless to me for preventing sanctions. Spartaz expresses a position that has been rejected by ArbComm many times, but never explicitly enough. It's time. Nobody is "forced" to recuse, and there is no way to prevent even a clearly biased admin from pushing a block button. WP:IAR continues to apply, even if this were taken as a fixed rule. Recusal means that a decision is made, efficiently, by an uninvolved administrator: recusal does not mean "unblock," and screaming "bias" is singularly ineffective as an unblock argument. An editor who demands recusal frequently, without good cause, is disruptive, and will be effectively banned even without a discussion.

Spartaz's argument is based on the idea that some administrators understand a situation better than others, because of experience with it. That's certainly true, but if that understanding can't be communicated when necessary, sufficient to convince an uninvolved admin, who will listen to both sides, it's highly likely to be biased. Involved editors always understand situations better than uninvolved ones, each in their own way, but we need to deal with conflict among them, and we do that by encouraging neutral decision. What recusal does is to avoid debates over bias; instead, the issue becomes the editor's behavior. As I describe in my collapsed discussion above, it works. In a recent discussion on her Talk, Iridescent wrote she considered her block of me the most controversial thing she had ever done. My view of it was quite different. Given her understanding of the situation, it was perfect, because she immediately recused, and, more than that, she fully recused, she didn't try to prove she was right. I was left, not with a dispute with her, but facing the community. If I had whined tendentiously about her being biased -- she wasn't -- I might still be blocked! That history also shows that recusal doesn't mean "unblock." It simply means that an admin, faced with involvement or a claim of such, sidesteps the issue easily and entirely by turning it over. The admin still does his or her duty under IAR. I'm not claiming that an admin should be desysopped for failing to recuse, faced with some vandal's claim of involvement! However, it's still a good idea! The admin should make sure that the block is long enough to be reviewed, that's all. Most vandals don't make such claims, actually.

We are seeing, here, the cabal fighting to retain its privilege and power. With one possible exception, these are not neutral opinions, they are biased, factional opinions. Raul654 claims that "Abd does this frequently." He hasn't, here, or in his evidence, cited one example, and there are none. I've been blocked three times. The first, as a police "Everybody stop!" action, immediately rescinded. The second, by Iridescent. No claim of involvement. The third, by WMC, and in this case the claims of admin action while involved were long-standing, yet I did not even put up an unblock template. I claimed that JzG was involved when he made certain decisions. Not with me -- he had actually supported me with his tools, with Yellowbeard. ArbComm confirmed I was correct about JzG, while the cabal claimed that I should be banned for "pushing" the issue, as it continues to claim. I now assert that Raul654 was and is involved in his use of tools, I will present evidence to support this, but he hasn't used them against me, he's merely threatened to. I can think of one other claim of admin involvement, starting long ago when I wasn't personally involved: WMC, as documented in my evidence. It was the same with JzG; I encountered and warned the admin about action while involved when I was completely neutral, there was no personal dispute, and the Cold fusion POV aspect only came up later. This is the first case where I'm claiming involvement where I was the target. And, I submit, the ultimate cause for this was that I confronted three cabal administrators, Raul654 and WMC (in RfC/GoRight) and then JzG.

The cabal is not organized. It does not ultimately protect its own, except temporarily; in fact, it leads them off the cliff by supporting them when their positions are blatantly insupportable. An organized cabal would be far more clever, and, on the one hand, possibly more dangerous, but, on the other, tractable, because it would be possible to negotiate with it. There is no negotiation with the cabal confronted here, precisely because it isn't organized. There is a legitimate aspect to its activities, and the only issue is that it becomes unrestrained, and damages the balance of the project, through collective action. This proposal isn't about the cabal, though it shows how to defuse claims of factional bias without debate, rather this proposal is about the principle of recusal, to protect the project against damage to its reputation and against unnecessary disruption over claims of administrative bias.

response to Crohie. Thanks. Our system need not answer the question, "how many," but I'm going to say "Three," as a guess. This proposal does not require or even suggest that an editor be unblocked upon a claim of bias. It merely suggests that the admin who faces such a claim should step back and let someone else make the next decision, and specious claims of bias are relevant as disruptive, so I always advise blocked editors to avoid this unless they are prepared to prove it, and, as well, to wait longer for unblock. It should not necessary to prove bias to request recusal. An editor who repeated this a few times, however, with a few different admins, would almost certainly be indef blocked, and admins would become increasingly reluctant to unblock.

Suppose that there is a cabal involved. Perhaps cabal admins watched for the unblock template and rushed in. Okay, at this point we have a possible cabal, not merely a small-scale dispute, and it will probably be necessary for ArbComm to address it, lower-level dispute resolution process is likely inadequate to resolve it without disruption. Any editor believing denial of unblock is unfair, and who continues to believe this after a series of unblock denials, may appeal to ArbComm, and in a case like this, ArbComm would consider if the claims of involvement were reasonable. If they were, then it would address that, and, where this has happened once, it has likely happened other times as well, because the great bulk of admin actions are never reviewed. Most blocked editors just disappear (or come back quietly as new accounts). Few editors have what it takes to bring a matter before ArbComm, unless somehow they attract an advocate, and it's often complicated by some level of actual misbehavior. (GoRight had certainly violated policies, but what I did then was to look at the context. The cabal focused on him and completely avoided looking at its own involvement.) A cabal trait would be that offenses normally dealt with by warning or dispute resolution process are, instead, promptly and severely addressed with incivility, tag-team reversion, and blocks, which then encourages the blocked editor to violate as well, thus justifying further blocks or bans, sometimes even by uninvolved admins who look at behavior in isolation. Incivility or other policy violations by cabal members is unaddressed until it becomes so widespread and disruptive that it is impossible to ignore it, as happened with JzG and ScienceApologist. In both cases, had friends of the editor acted effectively to restrain their friend, we might have avoided much disruption.

Many seem to assume I'm complaining about the existence of the cabal. I'm not. I'm suggesting that there are factions involved here, and we may all benefit if they are acknowledged and identified, and if they are better organized within themselves, as they see fit -- and we cannot prevent this in any case -- not if they are "crushed." Crushing opposition is a cabal effect, and very harmful to the project. The problem with the cabal is that it may present the appearance of many independent judgments, a false consensus, when it is really representing an established factional position only, with the individual judgments being predictable and thus almost certainly not neutral. And it's very visible here, as it was in RfC/GoRight. There may be many cabals, but, here we are looking at what might be named the Global Warming Cabal, after the first incident that made it plain to me that it existed. RfC/GoRight and the evidence and comments is well worth reviewing carefully in order to understand cabal behavior.

Clerk recusal. Crohnie raised this. Yes, I asked for recusal, because the clerk made certain comments showing a judgment about case issues, it's basic for a clerk not to do that while a case is active, or to recuse, if the clerk believes that commenting is more important. However, it's minor, and probably harmless. I don't see it being continued, so water under the bridge. Had I thought it of continued importance, I'd have made sure it was considered by ArbComm. Nothing about this proposal involves "threats of desysop." Acting while involved is not automatic desysop, at all. However, insisting on the continued right to do so probably is. Hence WMC's bit is seriously at risk, because that's his position and the oft-expressed position of the cabal. I'm glad to see you moving away from that. Notice how strongly the cabal admins have expressed the contrary.

Beetstra's comment. Beetstra is not a cabal admin, though he has called for me to be banned before, in the JzG case; he has consistently argued against restrictions on administrative discretion, which he imagines this proposal is. (Spartaz isn't currently listed with the cabal, but will be, I expect, for reasons that will be given in the Evidence.) Requiring that there be a discussion of involvement for routine recusal guarantees unnecessary disruption, because a definitive determination can be very complex. Recusal is simple. If we want to make it more complicated -- I do not see it needed at this point -- we might require a "second" from a responsible editor. And "responsible" means that this editor could be held accountable for repeated "seconds" without reasonable basis. The point of good process is to avoid unnecessary dispute; if we have to discuss involvement, we've lost sight of the purpose of it all: efficiently facilitating the project while maintaining, not only neutrality, but the appearance of neutrality as well. If we are going to require a second, we would then make recusal truly mandatory upon a seconded request. It would still be advisable upon a solitary request. Note, as well, that an admin may, under IAR, disregard -- temporarily -- recusal requirements, as with any rule, and, if the admin provides notice and the action isn't later considered "bad faith" or incompetent, there is no risk to the bit. I've defended an admin who so acted (and his "deletionist" factional affiliation was different from mine, he'd blocked my "inclusionist" wikifriend). I'll note, though, that this case was one of the few that I've "lost," perhaps because it was decided the admin clearly should have recused and it was decided there was no emergency requiring he block, and he's been desysopped. Making recusal rules plain and simple will protect administrators, not make their tasks more difficult. The belief of an administrator that their personal knowledge is crucial, and therefore they must personally maintain control, is probably a strong sign of real involvement, even if difficult to prove. --Abd (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose Obviously a tailor-made "get-me-of-the hook" proposal by Abd. It is completely unworkable and favours disruptive wikilawyering editors. Mathsci (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Its a long standing trick of tendentious editors to try and argue that an admin is involved and thereby force them to recuse to avoid scrutiny by admins who actually understand the issues. Undertaking admin actions on editors or articles when not acting as an editor does not make you involved. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Partially Agree with some, not other parts. I think the recusal policy is important. But the problem I am having is what administrator is not involved with Abd? He has even stated he wants Hersfold to recuse from this case (dif provided if you need it.). When is claiming an administrator is involved being seen as 'crying wolf' too many times? I have a problems with this and threats of dysop. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Involved admins must recuse, but the hazards of requiring recusal "when involvement has been claimed" are self apparent. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Spartaz described perfectly what Abd does frequently. Raul654 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, I could live with such a statement when there is some significant support for calling an admin involved (that needs independent editors saying that, or editors who, by themselves, decide that they are involved), but the claim alone is by far not enough. 'Will the last remaining uninvolved admin please involve himself by taking action?' --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Abd. Again a wall of text, unreadable, so I only bothered to reply for the part to me. Abd, this is about recusal, I do not see, like in the other part where you mention this, what my previous (ancient?) call for your ban is doing here, that would be more appropriate as a response somewhere else on this page (there where I did not remark, heh, maybe that is why you need to do it here, maybe you wonder if and what I will respond there?), it is totally out of line to mention that here, does not make any sense. My response, short and clear, is against your "..an administrator should not insist upon the right to use tools when involvement has been claimed, but should recuse..". I Oppose to this one, in this form, as you fail to say, who has to claim this. If the subject of the 'conflict' is the claimant, then no (and you are often that claimaint that claims that someone is involved, but maybe if you would rephrase it, I could agree. "... we might require a "second" from a responsible editor. And "responsible" means that this editor could be held accountable for repeated "seconds" without reasonable basis. The point of good process is to avoid unnecessary dispute ..." .. hmm .. and who is going to decide who is the second 'responsible' editor? Do we also need a third for that, to decide if the second is actually responsible and not actually involved himself so also he should recuse (even if that is not an admin!), &c. &c. Like in an American lawcourt, where, I believe, first a process is necessery to collect an 'independent' jury of 12 (?). A whole process to define everything. Wikilawyering, Abd, that is what it is. We are all volunteers here, and everybody makes mistakes, what you define here is process to make sure that if admins make mistakes or step over the edge, that they can be punished for it. I do believe you mean it in good faith, and with the best meaning of it all, but that is exactly how it is going to be used. Hence, oppose, per WP:NOTLAW. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"We are all volunteers here, and everybody makes mistakes, what you define here is process to make sure that if admins make mistakes or step over the edge, that they can be punished for it." - Could you please clarify why you think punishment is involved here? In what way is mere recusal for the good of the project by upholding the highest standards of neutrality a punishment? --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No, GoRight, what I mean is that I anticipate what will happen if an admin does not recuse, while involvement has been claimed .. and what will happen if an admin is opposing to an edit or performs an action (as I expect that many will cry wolf and claim involvement): we will get lengthy processes for almost every action that an admin takes. Recusal can very easy come after that action (not before), we now already get many lengthy ArbComs (and if principles like these pass, there are MANY to come) because Abd (and you apparently), think that the admin has to recuse before taking action. If an admin takes an action, while one thinks he is involved, then a) review if the action is OK (we have {{unblock}}, blacklist de-listing requests page, talkpages for protected pages, &c. &c.), b) see if the admin really is involved, and from then on the admin can/should recuse (if he really is involved), but don't start discussions, 'oh, but the previous action should not have been taken in the first place' (and failure to acknowledge that .. well see this attempt (I know, one can also read that remedy as 'preventing further damage')).

This proposal shifts the time of action to a time in discussion which is very dangerous, and many admins already bring up their actions themselves already, some recuse from action in the future, but do not moan about the actions already taken. Abd clearly says here 'I do not acknowledge the ban applied by William M. Connolley, as he is involved' (and that is very similar to the Abd and JzG case). No, follow the ban, don't wikilawyer, discuss it somewhere else, and if a) the community thinks that the ban should not apply, then lift the ban, and b) if William M. Connolley is really involved, he should recuse from then on. And if the admin already does that by himself before taking action, well that is already very clearly described in WP:UNINVOLVED. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Unsure. I think I'm starting to "get" it. In a case of a new and disruptive editor, it would mean that more than one admin handles the situation. There would tend to be rapid escalation of block length, and only a few admins would be needed. Abd, what about a situation where an established editor argues (with some justification) that each of almost every admin is "involved" with them? May I suggest rewording this one to be advice rather than a requirement? (e.g. "would be well-advised to" or something rather than "should"). The way I would put it is: actually acting while involved (as determined by community consensus later, if necessary) is the offense. Acting while not (considered by broad consensus to be) involved but while claimed to be involved is not an offense. However, it's nevertheless advisable to recuse, for two reasons: first, in case there's a chance that community consensus will later determine that you were indeed involved; thus this advice removes excuses for acting while involved, ("but I didn't realize I would be considered involved!") since recusal was an available and recommended option. Secondly, because recusal in the face of a claim of involvement helps give those affected by the admin action the impression that they were treated fairly, even if nobody but them can see any reasonable argument for involvement. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This idea has been brought to the community before, usually by those who have a novel definition of "involved" and are known to have problematic behavior. The same thing applies here; Abd paints "involved" with a broad and biased brush to suit his purposes. Reviews on ANI or RfC already handle incidents where someone has truly become too involved. Does it strike anyone as truly ironic that Abd is trying to validate one of his standard disruptions? Rather than learn to respect consensus, if he can call enough people "involved" he honestly believes that this will allow him to get his way. Bizarre. Shell ^babelfish 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose There are two sides to every coin. It's a nice easy get out clause for those editors who enjoy game playing, baiting blocks then claiming "Involved! Involved!". I'd somewhat agree if both sides of the problem were addressed. Minkythecat (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Raul654

Proposed principles

Meatpuppetry

1) Restoring edits from banned users is meatpuppetry. Meatpuppetry is prohibited. Users who act as meatpuppets for banned users may be blocked.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Two comments. First, the term "meatpuppetry" has a variety of meanings to different people, and using it can divert attention from the substance of the discussion to quarrels over definitions. It would be better if this were expressed directly in terms of the underlying conduct (e.g., "Restoring edits from banned users is prohibited"). If the conduct is prohibited, it is prohibited regardless of what label is put on it. Second, as reflected in the discussion below, we might be best served with a somewhat refined or more nuanced version of the proposal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Restoring edits from banned users is not meat puppetry, per se. The use of the term "banned" here is also not necessary. Blocked users are in the same position. Edits from blocked or banned users may be reverted on sight. Raul has, below, quoted me accurately. There is no policy as claimed. It is acknowledged that acting as a meatpuppet for a blocked or banned user -- or any user, for that matter -- can result in a block. However, once an edit has been made, the edit is in the database and can be read by anyone unless oversighted. Whether or not to restore an edit should depend, not on the ban or block status of the original editor, but on its usefulness to the project. I'm insufficiently familiar with the Scibaby case to say much about it; I reverted a Scibaby edit back in without any reasonable notice that it was, in fact, Scibaby; however, the edit itself was to User talk:GoRight and my judgment was that he'd rather see the edit directly; the whole thing was rather silly, since GoRight can read it anyway; GoRight later decided to restore it to respond to it. The other alleged "meat puppetry" would be with User:JedRothwell, who is not banned, there has never been the required community ban discussion; if he's banned, it's an administrative ban, originally issued by JzG, in the presence of his involvement in long-term conflict with the editor; that account is blocked, but it was an inactive account, not used since 2006, blocked during a recent RfAr/Clarification for unclear reasons. JedRothwell, however, is a well-known expert in the field of Cold fusion, he knows the literature extremely well, having edited much of it. When he pops in as IP, he often has much to say of relevance to the article or what's going on. He's also blunt and caustic, but no more so than another COI editor we tolerate at the article: Kirk shanahan. With one restored edit from Rothwell, I recall removing the arguably uncivil part (usually it is on the level of a general claim of Wikipedia bias or general uselessness). It has never been found that a specific reversion to restore an edit by Rothwell was, itself, disruptive or improper; what's been claimed over and over is that such reversion is prohibited, but IAR recognizes no absolute prohibitions, and, as noted, there is no policy prohibiting such, unless ArbComm decides to establish one. The existing policy allows restoration of content if the editor restoring is willing to take responsibility for it, and "content" is a general term that does not solely refer to articles.

Those who claim that I inappropriately restored edits, please provide specific examples where the content violated policy. --Abd (talk) 06:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jed was banned exclusively for his comments in Talk:Cold fusion (since it was the only page he posted to) and you restored his comments, taking full responsability for them. In other works, per our banning policy, we should have had to ban you too if you hadn't stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, banning from a small number of incidents, and with no showing that the specific restorations were disruptive, would be a tad overreactive, I'd think. Enric's interpretation would be correct under the proposed principle, however, which is why it's so offensive. Restoring edits from blocked or banned editors, which takes place quite in the open and with obvious personal responsibility, is not "meat puppetry," per se, nor is it "proxying"; to establish these would require verification of improper intent. It is an editor making a decision that content (for articles or for discussion) is useful, and that's why I requested -- so far no satisfaction of this request -- that specific examples be provided. Enric has always argued, since the beginning of this dispute, that restoration was per se contrary to policy, and that's a serious misunderstanding, and an obvious one. I restored a spelling correction to Cold fusion made by ScienceApologist, that had been reverted because of his topic ban, and under the proposed principle, that would be "meat puppetry." This was, in fact, taken to AE, where the complainant, Hipocrite!, was pretty roundly criticized for disruption. I'm amazed that Enric or others would edit war with me over some harmless content on a Talk page, but I did not revert war back, nor did I pursue DR; quite simply, it wasn't important enough. Nor did any editor pursue DR with me. Now that there is a nice coat-rack erected, all this is being brought up, even though it was totally irrelevant to the page bans issued by WMC, as far as I've seen. What does Raul's proposal have to do with this case? --Abd (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support but make the changes proposed by NYB. I hae seen in other discussions that "meatpuppeting" is taken as inaccurate by the community and that there are problems when using that label. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Given Abd's behavior with respect to Jed Rothwell and Scibaby, and his own misconceptions about what our policies are (To wit: There is no policy against restoring reverted edits of banned or blocked users if the edits themselves are not disruptive or policy violations - Abd, July 14, 2009), a clear principle to this effect is needed. Raul654 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that that particular statement is misinformed; edits by banned users are to be reverted on sight, regardless of merit. There's a (rarely used) CSD criterion for specifically this purpose, WP:G5. However, once reverted, if the edit does have merit and an editor can independently verify its worth and has independent reasons for making it themselves, they can do so to put it in under their own name. Granted, though, that's a little complicated and can elicit suspicion itself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hersfold here. I think Raul's interpretation is not at all what the policy states, per WP:BAN: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called 'proxying,' unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." (emphasis mine). There is no rule prohibiting Abd or anyone else from restoring a Scibaby edit provided they have verified the legitimacy of it, and realizing that by doing so they take full responsibility for the edit. Oren0 (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"Verifiable" means restoring edits to articles which improve the article, and can be verified against reliable sources. Given that Abd was restoring, among other things, talk page edits by banned users, he fails that exception on both counts -- his edits were neither verifiable nor did he think of them independently. Raul654 (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, yeah. I can't think of any reason you'd need to restore a talk page edit; that is proxying. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then "Unless they can be independently verified and there is a good, editorial-based reason for doing so, restoring edits..." ? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Question, what is the definition of "restore" being applied here? A simple revert? Adding a comment that contains the same or similar content? What is the time duration required to have elapsed before the topic mentioned by a banned user is once again safe to discuss? These are all applicable questions given the manner in which this principle is likely to be applied. --GoRight (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject: "Restoring edits from banned users is meatpuppetry." - This is a ridiculous statement. This would allow Raul to block anyone expressing even a vaguely skeptical statement related to AGW. Once they had done so he could easily twist it into resembling something Scibaby said some place. While policy allows the edits of banned users to be reverted on sight, and for good reason, it does not forever ban any mention of a topic of the same or a similar nature. This proposal is merely a transparent attempt to ban minority points of view. Meat puppetry is inherently acting at the direction of another user, not simply the act of restoring material that may have value to the project. Current policy clearly states that users are permitted to restore edits of banned users so long as they are willing to take full responsibility for the content. --GoRight (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

If a banned user makes a spelling correction and their edit is reverted, must we now leave the word misspelled lest we be blocked for meat puppetry? This could easily happen with a RollBack could it not? --GoRight (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. proxying for banned users is simply unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with this statement depending on the definition of "proxying." Does proxying require that the user be acting at the direction of the banned user, or not? How do we distinguish between "proxying" and WP:AGF adoption of a valid point that happens to have started with a banned user? --GoRight (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It depends how consistently the user is doing it. Reverting and restoring a minor edit is within policy. Advocating on talk pages on behalf of fringe views put forward by banned users is clearly not acceptable. Starting a crusade to advance the agenda of the banned user is even worse. Where you fall on that continuum is why we expect admins to exercise discretion and common sense Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not address the fundamental point of my question. To be a meat puppet do you need to be acting at the direction of the banned user, or not? Is merely expressing a similar POV sufficient to label someone a meat puppet? --GoRight (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the correct answer is somewhere in the middle between the two poles you cite but that is undoubtedly something the arbcom will look at. I know where I stand and I can guess where you stand but I can't see the point arguing the point because ultimately it doesnt matter two hoots what we think as were aren't arbiters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Banned/blocked means you don't edit, period. The spelling errors and other minor things will be noticed by someone editing the article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question for Raul: I thought that the scope of this proceeding was limited to a review of the actions of the involved parties as they relate specifically to User:William M. Connolley's page ban of User:Abd. Am I wrong on this point? Has the scope been increased?

Assuming I am correct for the moment, what is the relevance of your proposed principle to the case being discussed? Did User:William M. Connolley allege meat puppetry as part of his reason for issuing the ban in question? I don't recall seeing any such allegation but I could have missed it. If so, please point it out. On the other hand, has User:Abd accused User:William M. Connolley of being a meat puppet of someone else in this matter? I don't recall seeing such an allegation on his part either. --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

See Carcharoth's comment in accepting the case. I'd say it's safe to say that the arbs may look at things a bit more broadly. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Rather obvious, perhaps in a slightly rewritten form. Neither Abd nor GoRight seem to understand wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is not controversial -it's basic. Though occasionally one may take responsibility for the rare and helpful mainspace edit, it should never appear as if you are seeking out a banned editor's edits to restore (could be construed as disruptive). "Comments" by banned users (almost any non-mainspace edit) should never be made at their direction or restored. R. Baley (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  What degree of similarity in comments would you require to label someone as a meat puppet? How would you prevent this from being used to extend the bans of some individuals to others who are not otherwise banned but hold similar points of view? --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

  The business of reverting edits by banned users has always been fairly controversial, for instance in the sense that despite hardliners on the issue, the language of the relevant policy has been deliberately kept soft: edits "may be reverted" but efforts to harden into "are reverted" and "will be reverted" have always been rejected. Editors are "are generally expected to refrain" from reinstating such edits. Reinstatements "may be viewed" as meatpuppetry. Of course reinstatement does not in itself make it so, that would be "will be viewed", a wording no one has ever suggested. User talk and talk pages have historically been places where the policy was weaker again. The idea has been of course to leave room for common sense to win the day. Whether instances of reinstatement by Abd were common sense or not could be a matter for discussion (with diffs), but is it a matter that rises to the level of a finding? Doubtful. Was it meatpuppetry? Seems rather a stretch and proved here merely by assertion. 86.44.42.17 (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - although I also don't like the use of "meatpuppet", and I think it can be more neutrally worded. - Bilby (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• The Banning policy says this: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." My interpretation of it is that reinstating such edits is not absolutely prohibited (the policy uses the words "generally" and "may be viewed", and for reinstaters the policy says "full responsibility for the content", not "automatically regarded as a lackey to the banned user"), but that a great deal of caution should be exercised when doing so, because the reinstater needs to make sure the edit is indeed a good one. This kind of quality control is something most editors do for their own edits, but it needs to be taken special care of when reinstating an edit that you yourself didn't write. I think the blanket term "is meatpuppetry" goes a little bit too far, because it implies that any reinstatement of an edit from a banned user must be a bad edit. A reinstated edit from a banned user should be assessed on its objective merit and value to the article, and if the edit is good, the reinstater should not be sanctioned for it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would agree with this interpretation Sjakkalle if we were only discussing edits on article pages, but my understanding is that the main objection came when Abd starting restoring talk page comments from banned users. Fixing occasional spelling and grammatical errors in actual articles is one thing but inserting a banned user back into a discussion of content that they have specifically been told they can't contribute to - by virtue of being banned from the project - is clearly not something covered by this interpretation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Spartaz, rarely, (once or twice?) I restored Talk page comments from IP edits signed as "Jed Rothwell." All of the comments I restored were helpful to the project, in my opinion, that's why I restored them. I was reverted and didn't insist, even though the reversion of me was actually improper. Then, very recently, I saw an edit by an unknown user to User talk:GoRight that was reverted by Raul654 with no explanation. I knew that GoRight would want to see it, probably want to reply, no matter who it was from. So I restored it, and Raul654 started screaming "meat puppetry" and threatening to block me. Huge disruption over an edit that wasn't disruptive in itself. I was, of course, reverted by a familiar name. (These are never truly ininvolved administrators, watching Talk:GoRight!) It was GoRight's Talk page, Spartaz. On Cold fusion, and Jed Rothwell, he wasn't banned, he's been blocked, in a rather irregular way. He has no right to edit, theoretically, because he hasn't appealed the block (it's not clear he even knows that it exists), but that doesn't and shouldn't deprive me of the right to consider something from him useful. There has been no community ban. If I could quote something from his web site on the Talk page -- and I can -- why can't I quote a post that he dropped here as IP?

• I think that's fair enough. I too have a hard time imagining a situation where a talk page edit from a banned user would be something which should restoration. If someone wants to make the discuss something on the talkpage, and just happen to have a legitimate viewpoint similar to that of a banned user, they should be able to write it in their own words. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not fair if credit is deprived from a banned editor for a helpful suggestion! What is banned is disruption, not helpful suggestions, which is what the edit from Jed Rothwell was as I recall. In neither relevant case, by the way, was the user actually banned by ArbComm or a consensus of uninvolved editors, these were what I call "administrative bans." The Scibaby ban has been by default, accepted, though not logged, but I can verify that there is a lot of grumbling over it, and it may be time to actually examine the circumstances, the necessary range blocks are highly disruptive. I did look, a little, and from what I found, it stinks. Police riot. Involved administrators, protecting the article they own, Global warming. Familiar names. Look at the block log for User:Scibaby. Look at the block log for sock number 1, User:Obedium. (if that was a sock, that couldn't have been proven by checkuser, I'm pretty sure, because of the timing.) When they aren't necessary, bans and blocks can cause more disruption than they prevent, much more. I'm not going to name names, but a "highly placed Wikipedian" commented about Scibaby at WikiConference New York, "Aren't most of his edits harmless anyway?" What's really involved here is Raul654's ego. He's not about to let Scibaby "win." Myself, I don't care about Scibaby, I care about the project. As long as the project doesn't lose, he can win. How about we make him a checkuser and put his expertise at evading blocks to use? --Abd (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"How about we make him a checkuser and put his expertise at evading blocks to use?" - Heh, an interesting point. It made me think of another. If someone (not Scibaby) reverts one of Raul's edits and Scibaby subsequently restores it, are we now allowed to remove the edit that Scibaby restored on sight? And if Raul (or anyone else for that matter) then restores his original edit can he (or that other someone) be blocked for acting as a meat puppet of Scibaby? Hmmm. Maybe I should reconsider my position on this point ... nah. --GoRight (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe you may have a misinformed impression of the level of reverting actually taking place in some cases. We are not simply talking about bald reverts of banned user comments. They are also complaining about even taking some nugget of the comment from a banned user which is pertinent to a discussion of improving an article, and pulling that into the talk page under your own signature. [Insert hypothetical administrator who would propose such a thing] would have you banned for such practices.

To give a hypothetical example, Scibaby is known to want to introduce material into the global warming articles related to methane and cow flatulence. Now, if some editor sees a comment from Scibaby on one of the talk pages that mentions this topic and it even provides a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal discussing such effects, and then that editor thinks hey, maybe this SHOULD be mentioned in the article and they pluck the same reference out of Scibaby's post perhaps including a bit of explanatory text and repost it Raul (mentioned here because he is the main Administrator chasing after Scibaby) is highly likely to call that reverting the comments of Scibaby. I disagree. Scibaby is banned, but discussions of cow flatulence and the effects of methane on climate change are not. --GoRight (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support If you're banned, you're banned. If you want to comment, appeal your ban. Nothing controversial here. Verbal chat 15:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Somewhat support Sjakkale makes some good points - for one thing, even some of our worst editors who get banninated to the seventh hell may actually have made edits which were completely correct, necessary, uncontroversial etc other than the ones that gotthem there. However the problem here is possible proxying for banned editors, a far more deliberate act which should not be condoned at all. Orderinchaos 16:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject per Sjakkalle. Reverting or quoting is not in itself meatpuppetry; else two editors reverting to the same version in an ordinary editwar (or even reversion of vandalism) would be committing meatpuppetry. It's a question of intent. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you OK weith Abd restoring talk page comments from banned users? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends. Although restoring such a comment might in itself be no more meatpuppetry than jumping in and reverting during an ordinary editwar, it could violate the banning policy, (or not, depending on the situation). Personally it doesn't bother me if any editor in good standing chooses to restore a talk page comment from a banned user, provided the comment itself is not intrinsically objectionable. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support with NYB's reword This is part of respecting consensus and community. When you restore a banned user's edits, you put yourself above everyone else here. Abd seems to have a reoccurring problem with just that - he knows better than the anti-fringe group, he knows better than his "cabals", he knows better than every editor that disagrees with him - its an utter lack of respect and frankly makes it appear that the Wikipedia community isn't really a good fit for him. Shell ^babelfish 22:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering

2) Wikilawyering [refers] to certain quasi-legal practices, including... Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions. - Wikipedia:Wikilawyering

Comment by Arbitrators:

Just as with "Meatpuppetry" above, "Wikilawyering" means many things to many people. It might again be best to avoid the use of this type of term and just focus on the specific types of conduct that are being prohibited or discouraged. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree. @NewYorkBrad, while you are right in that we should focus in specific conducts, "wikilawyering" is an accurate term and it is accepted by the community, similar to how "trolling" is also accepted by the community as an acceptable accurate block summary. If the wikilawyers are offended by the term then they should stop engaging into it. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. That is one lousy definition of wikilawyering, which refers to insisting upon the letter of the guidelines and policies, or interpretations of same, neglecting the purpose of those guidelines or policies. Wikilawyering isn't illegal or legal, or quasi-legal. It's not a "legal" thing at all, it's polemic, and "misinterpreting policy" is not wikilawyering, it's simply a mistake (unless it is deliberate, and founded on the letter of the policy instead of the intention). Wikilawyering abounds here on this page, with the spirit and purpose of policies being neglected in favor of insistence on following the letter of a policy, as interpreted by an editor and being used to condemn another, without regard for the purpose, which, in the end, is always the welfare of the project. --Abd (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not hard to see why this is needed here. Raul654 (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this practice needs to be stopped as it always causes disruptions. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, see Abd's response in the meatpuppetry section above -to my recollection, this is pervasive throughout his editing history. R. Baley (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support; although one person's appropriate is another's inappropriate, and one person's misinterpretation is another's interpretation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, needs to be said. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Abd has engaged in meatpuppetry

1) Abd has engaged in meatpuppetry on behalf of banned users Jed Rothwell [7] and Scibaby [8].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Where is your actual evidence for this? — Rlevse • Talk • 13:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's scibaby meatpuppetry was already cited above. I've added a new link to the evidence page for Enric's evidence, which shows at least 5 seperate instances of Abd operating as a meatpuppet on behalf of Jed. Raul654 (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Preposterous. It's not even on the map with Scibaby, but Raul hasn't presented actual evidence with any clarity. That's typical for Raul. He's a checkuser and oversighter, after all, why would he need to bother with real evidence? He's too busy whacking the moles in the game he helped to create. As to JedRothwell, again, where is the evidence? JedRothwell has expertise in the field of Cold fusion and makes occasional comments that are worth considering. (He's not banned, but so what? There is a block against an old account of his, issued three years after he last used it, based on ... what? He may be considered a blocked editor, but it's all quite shaky. I've never argued that editors could not revert his edits on sight, I've only claimed that restoring them may sometimes be appropriate.) I will, in my evidence, I expect, cover the edits involved, but allegations of meat puppetry were not part of any discussion connected with WMC's ban, as far as I'm aware. (Enric Naval has long made this charge, over and over, and he might have mentioned it before AN/I where it would have, again, been quite peripheral. However, it has never been shown or decided by consensus that my rare restorations of content from blocked or banned editors was improper. I've never been warned over it, as far as I recall, by any neutral editor, nor have I been blocked for it, and, from Raul's history with other editors, it's quite clear that if he believed he could make the Scibaby charge stick, he'd have blocked me.) --Abd (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"I've never been warned over it, as far as I recall, by any neutral editor" <-------------- but you have been warned multiple times by editors that you don't consider neutral, right? And what did you do about their warnings, may I ask? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered them and either accepted them or rejected them or compromised. I usually explain my position quite thoroughly, that's one of the complaints against me, actually. Only when an editor repeats the same spurious charges, over and over, do I start deleting them without comment or asking the editor to refrain from posting to my Talk. What, pray tell, am I supposed to do? I consider the positions on meat puppetry expressed here to be preposterous, and, while it's certainly not a common action for me, I've reverted in enough edits from blocked or banned editors without consequence, most frequently with no comment at all, and if the reality were as is being claimed (it is wikilawyering to claim that reverting a banned editor's content back in is a violation of policy based on a literalist interpretation of "ban," and a misinterpretation of "may be reverted" to morph it into "must be excluded"), and given that I've been closely tracked since WP:PRX days, I'd have been blocked. Instead, there never has been a community discussion that involved me and confirmed this position. I claim that if the project is improved, any editorial action like that is allowed, and unless an action is clearly against policy, AGF and IAR establish a presumption that what is not prohibited is allowed, and an editor may follow their own lights on this, until consensus against it becomes clear or there is collision with the rights of other editors. With policies, that means broad consensus, not just a local handful of editors screaming for blood because they are attached to a particular outcome. Or it means an ArbComm decision. Can anyone point to a relevant discussion or decision, if the policy is as alleged?

Once again, this proposed finding is not based on specific evidence provided, as far as I've seen, just general claims and charges. Verdict first, trial later. The alleged Scibaby meat puppetry only happened once, period, so I can assume the incident! It's this sequence: Original edit by alleged Scibaby sock], revert without comment by Raul654, my restoration with explanation, an explanation I've seen many times when I was so bold as to remove vandalism from an editor's talk page, and this wasn't vandalism. By the way, I've claimed in some places that I wasn't aware that this was a Scibaby sock. From my edit, I now see, this was obviously not true. Now that I see the discrepancy, I think I know what may have happened. My original simple revert was lost in a profusion of windows, and there may have been an access problem, Wikipedia was giving me error messages frequently, or I just closed the edit window accidentally. Later, when I realized that the edit hadn't been saved, I'd already looked around more, I knew more, and I redid the edit, and added the note about Scibaby. But I'm not sure. R.Baley -- recognize the name? -- reverted me. And I then commented, and more discussion ensued. GoRight eventually arrived and confirmed my impression that he'd want to respond to the edit. Now, tell me, was GoRight "meat puppeting" for Scibaby by restoring that edit? If so, and if this was done in the full view of a series of administrators who watch that page, and who had been claiming he'd be blocked for "proxying" for Scibaby, why wasn't he blocked or even warned? Discussion continued and Raul eventually made this enlightening comment. Raul watches GoRight talk and looks for edits that he suspects might be Scibaby, then checkusers the editor. Cool, eh? Wouldn't you like a tool like that? To use whenever you like? To check IP for a user who has a POV that is banned? Oops! We don't ban POVs, do we? I mean a user who has a POV like that of a banned user. If someone has been banned for what Raul thinks is your POV, checkuser restrictions, where disruptive editing is required before checkuser may be performed, apparently mean nothing. --Abd (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

@both Abd and GoRight. I expected Abd to stop and think "Hey, if so many editors are warning me about doing a certain thing, then maybe I am wrong about that thing?", and then stop doing that thing. IMHO, this is the root problem here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support in case it wasn't clear. Abd directly stated that he thought that Jed was an expert and that we should have Jed's opinions in the talk page. And that we were missing important opinions and information due to Jed not being present in the talk page. I'm not going to search diffs because they are buried in the middle of seas of verbiage, but his comments in the case here should be enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have not argued as Enric Naval claims. That's his impression. I do believe what he says, we have lost something important because of the block of Rothwell, though really the problem was long-term incivility and abuse from JzG, going way back, that's why Rothwell became uncivil (though he's normally quite gruff and blunt), but this has nothing to do with the very few (one or two?) restored edits, which were about those edits only. --Abd (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment re Crohnie. This is a great example of how the cabal works. There is no evidence presented on the Evidence page showing any pattern of restoring edits of a banned user, much less "meat puppetry." None. Raul's evidence essentially shows that I disagreed with him, not that I did anything reprehensible. For Raul, that's enough! Disagreement with Raul is Not Allowed. In the Scibaby sock revert Raul654 says it's a sock, do we believe him? I don't know, in fact. I do know that there is a whiff of disregard of checkuser policy in this case, Raul has acknowledged watching GoRight's talk page for posts that might be Scibaby, so he can checkuser and block, that's a matter of concern. I should diff this , there was one edit restored to a user talk page. The user subsequently restored that edit himself so that he could respond, and nobody has claimed that he didn't have the right to do that. I was merely anticipating it, and correctly. Crohnie acknowledges no familiarity with Rothwell, and doesn't know the history, and hasn't seen evidence, but merely unsubstantiated claims by cabal members, and so she supports this finding? That's reprehensible, in fact. We should base findings of fact on evidence, not on mere claims, and support of a finding should be testimony that the editor has seen evidence personally. Otherwise it's all just a popularity contest. Diffs showing a pattern? Showing that the restorations were contrary to policy? The cabal doesn't need that, because it believes that it is the community, its opinion is consensus. Crohnie has fallen in with the wrong crowd, unfortunately. It's time that ArbComm notice the problem, as a minimum.--Abd (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Follows from above. Raul654 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He is proud of it. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject. Abd cannot be a meat puppet of Jed Rothwell because Jed Rothwell is not banned. Abd cannot be a meat puppet of "banned user" Jed Rothwell because Jed Rothwell is not banned. No direct community discussion of banning of Rothwell has ever been held, nor has a clear community consensus in support of a ban ever been demonstrated. Reverting the comment on my talk page was a courtesy to me, not a demonstration of support for Scibaby. --GoRight (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to be a meat puppet for anyone; if you edit on their behalf, it qualifies. If person X asked me to !vote on an AfD a certain way, and did so without question or independent review, I'd be their meatpuppet. I'm not saying this has been done, necessarily, just that your statement above is inaccurate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In general you are correct. I have clarified my meaning above. You do point to a key point, that such editing had to be at the direction of ther other user (i.e. "If person X asked me to ...") in order to be a meat puppet of that user, correct? Where is the evidence that Abd acted at the direction of either Jed Rothwell or Scibaby?

Support. I think a couple of editors should read WP:MEAT again if they haven't already the User:Hersfold explains the problem pretty well. Also, an editor can be banned by an administrator and continue to be banned as long as there is no one available to unban. Please stop saying the editor isn't banned when he obviously is. For disclosure, I do not know the editor Jed Rothwell.--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Abd. You have no idea what I have looked into since this case has started. What difs I have looked at or how I came to my conclusions. With what you have been pounding me with, your goal is to try to get my perfect record here at this project, dirty! On my talk page you warned me that I had nothing to worry about as long as I didn't become uncivil here at arbcom. Are you looking for those buttons to push? You almost had me but instead I am asking for someone to make Abd assume good faith and follow no personal attacks which is what the comments addressed to me are, assumptions of bad faith, that I just follow the crowd. He can't know what I've read or what I haven't, please refactored or remove. I say that this cabal stuff has gone far enough, it is a personal attack above. If you don't want editors to make comments about you and Rothwell then I suggest you stop posting that you are restoring his posts and talking to him via email. You have said it many times, even in this arbcom case, and you've said you'ld do it again. This is a violations of WP:MEAT with a banned user. You said it, so don't blame me for agreeing that you have done it and would continue to with others. You set up a whole page for banned editors to share with you that got deleted because of policies, let's be real. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Also, an editor can be banned indefinitely blocked by an administrator and continue to be banned as long as there is no one available to unban unblock, that block may be considered to be a ban." - That is a more accurate description of what WP:Banning policy actually states. So the question becomes, how do you know that there is no administrator available to unblock Jed Rothwell? Without such a determination Rothwell is more accurately described as indefinitely blocked than banned. --GoRight (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well until an adminstrator comes along and unblocks them they are banned, we don't need to poll all 1800 or however many there are these days. And to answer your earlier is obvious Abd was meatpuppeting because they knowingly restored the edits of a banned user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Well until an administrator comes along and unblocks them they are banned indefinitely blocked." - Sorry but this statement disagrees with WP:Banning policy as it is currently written. The indefinite block only becomes a ban after we know, for a fact, that there IS no administrator willing to unblock. The policy is currently mute on what process is to be used to actually determine that no administrator is willing to unblock. If you find that situation unacceptable, well help find a consensus on how to address it in the policy. --GoRight (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but this statement disagrees with WP:Banning policy as it is currently written - Gee, I wonder why that is? Raul654 (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only assume that you somehow missed this, which restored the text of the policy to its state at the time of the events being discussed here and was performed well in advance of my comment here. You wouldn't be trying to give people any false impressions, would you? Regardless, I stand by my comment under either wording. --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to indicate that Sarah had also changed the text to that state. However she reverted herself because she couldn't deal with the current page (which was filled with lenghty rantings and it was ridiculous for anoyone from outside to come in and the discussion and that others thought like her), and that she had to go to bed and she hadn't time to start a new section to discuss it[9]. So WMC wasn't alone in his opposition to that change. Also notice how experienced admins have later explained why the change is not good. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Enric Above "And what did you do about their warnings, may I ask?" - What would you have him do, Enric, simply give up and let the majority POV pushers have their way even though his actions do not violate any policy? Do you not think that there is any benefit from requiring such warnings to come for neutral parties? Given your apparent alignment with the individuals in question I guess I can understand why you might take this position. --GoRight (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Enric Above "I expected Abd to stop and think "Hey, if so many editors are warning me about doing a certain thing, then maybe I am wrong about that thing?", and then stop doing that thing." - And why, exactly, should he do that if he believes that he is right? Must everyone bow before the opinion of Enric and his friends lest Enric decide that they should be summarily banned and rabidly vehemently pursued for the egregious offense of having a differing opinion along with being willing to express it? It is no secret that you have become obsessed with highly focused on having first Rothwell, then Abd, and recently myself all banned and have used every method you could devise to effect that purpose. Note that none of your targets has called for your banning. Hmmm, says I, perhaps you should take your own advice to stop and think about that and why it might be. --GoRight (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree I think my first interactions with Abd, before I knew anything else about him, was warning him about this and removing Jed's comments and Abd's restorations from the Cold fusion talk page. Clear proxy editing and meatpuppetry and an ongoing problem, even during this case. Verbal chat 15:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I find it difficult to imagine Abd editing at the direction of anyone. He places community consensus and concern for the project first, and always seems to have an explanation of the reasons for his actions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject My rationale is explained farther down, in the second of two paragraphs (different locations) that start with "Question:" V (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Hmm...I don't think this quite gets it. I would suggest something along the lines of Abd interacts inappropriately with banned editors which would also cover his attempts to wikilawyer against their bans, encouraging them to circumvent their bans and various other sundry ways that he handles these interactions poorly. Shell ^babelfish 22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's wikilawyering

2) Abd frequently proffers his own interpretations of policy which are at odds with what policy actually says. He uses these false claims about policy to justify his own inappropriate behavior. This is wikilawyering.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Very accurate. In my evidence you can find the comments of many editors telling him over many months that he doesn't understand or misunderstands policy, but at this point in time he still thinks that he has the correct interpretation. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. Let me translate Raul's proposal. "what policy actually says" is not what policy actually says, it's what Raul believes it means. This proposal is internally contradictory, not uncommon with Raul's bullying bulls or fatwas. "Wikilawyering" doesn't refer to attempts to state the substance or meaning of policy, but to relying upon the actual wording of the policy in contrast to the substance. Thus, if I were "wikilawyering," I would not be stating what is at odds with what the policy "actually says," I would be doing the opposite: I'd be doing what he asserts in the second part: making a false claim about the real policy, i.e., the "intent of the law," based on accidental meanings of the text, in order to justify my own behavior (or that of others.) Occasionally, I consider that the wording of a policy does not reflect the intention. Further, I may sometimes err in my understanding of actual practice; after all, I've only been seriously editing this project for less than two effing years. I'm quick, but not that quick. But I do understand the basic principles on which this project was founded, why it worked to the extent it has, and why it has fallen short of the original ideals, in some respects, and I do express this native and instinctive understanding, which, to those who are rule-bound, can be puzzling. And to those who want everyone else to follow rules, with IAR applying only to them, infuriating. Underneath this case is a phenomenon I will need to address, as will ArbComm. My very presence can sometimes be disruptive, this did not begin here. However, I will say this: I've been ejected before for "disruption," where those with the power made that decision, and the results have not been good for the organizations, not necessarily because I was crucial, though sometimes I was, but because a society which rejects "gadflies," or those who mention the nudity of the emperor, has become rigid and unable to adapt to changing circumstances. For good social reasons, though, mentioning the nudity of the emperor needs to be properly confined and contained. It is not a simple problem.

I will note one fact: it seems that whenever Jimbo makes a bold decision, the community descends into an uproar. His activity is disruptive. For better or for worse? My position is that we need this kind of disruption, but we should take measures to contain it, and what it will require is nondisruptive means of rapid and efficient development of deep consensus, and this is something that is vigorously opposed by those who might lose some power were it to happen, or, at least, that is what they fear. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• An extremely common Abd behavior. Raul654 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Seems accurate. Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject. Abd's statements regarding policy are always backed by the clear text and spirit of the policy in question. --GoRight (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

  I also endorse the comments of Coppertwig below. --GoRight (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely, almost a textbook case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree Sadly I have to agree to this. I have been talking a lot to editors about this case, including Abd, and I find a lot of wikilawyering going on to justify things. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Also note the salient point from Abd's long response above, "I've been ejected before for 'disruption,' . . ." -apparently from multiple "organizations". Food for thought, R. Baley (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. No way around it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree All too obvious. Common behaviour from Abd, and a huge problem for those attempting to work on the same articles. Verbal chat 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Orderinchaos 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject. I don't remember seeing any examples of such. We all find ourselves having to interpret and apply policy at times; if there is disagreement about how to apply it in particular situations, try WP:DR. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  I don't remember seeing any examples of such. - You must not be looking very hard. if there is disagreement about how to apply it in particular situations, try WP:DR - you do realize that arbitration workshops -- including this page -- are part of the dispute resolution process, right? Raul654 (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We've discussed this here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Abd has done this on many occasions, and I did remark about this to Abd when Abd disagreed with a certain action, where the action may have been harsh, but well within policy/guideline (outside of the Cold Fusion case). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject - Per Coppertwig. --GoRight (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• You've already "rejected" it once. Better to add a statement to your first "rejection" above that you endorse Coppertwig's comments. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Completely missed that amongst all the clutter. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse This cuts to the heart of about half the problems with trying to find consensus at a page where Abd is involved. Disagreement over quality and treatment of sources is one thing, but inappropriately misciting policy stifles and derails debate. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Exactly There are an absurd number of diffs in the evidence already that display this issue. When not getting the outcome he desires, Abd rewrites policy and consensus out of whole cloth, usually in 5-10 paragraph chunks and more importantly, continues as if his novel interpretation is correct. Anyone who objects to these behaviors then becomes part of a "cabal" or "involved" and thus Abd can discard their input, leaving only his voice to be heard. Coppertwig - please refer to [10] and then tell me how you justify Abd's novel interpreation of "involved" which he used to wikilawyer in an attempt to reinstate a banned user. Isn't it curious how Abd didn't remove anyone from the "oppose" section even though they fit the same criteria? Shell ^babelfish 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Whilst some policies certainly need clarification / simplification, Abd relies upon his interpretation of said policies. Any other interpretation of said policies may or not be consistent with Abd's interpretation. If not, then the point gets argued down to the lowest possible degree. Consensual agreement on the interpretation of policies needs to be clarified by Arbcom otherwise the wikilawyering will continue. Minkythecat (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. Wizzy…☎ 06:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd/GoRight disruption of dispute resolution proceedings

GoRight and Abd have on multiple occasions attempted to derail dispute resolution proceedings against the other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• This isn't quite the phrasing I'd choose, but it comes close to expressing the basic problem. For whatever reason, GR has chosen to pile in on Abd's side, and is completely ignoring Abd's many flaws. So, support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah. GoRight has made every effort to disturb attempts to get Abd banned. I am still unclear on why. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Raul cites his own evidence, which is better than some others have done. Except that this compilation of evidence, like that when I first came across Raul654, completely impeaches him, he's unreliable, he makes statements, central to his argument, that are just plain false, and he should know better, he's either seriously reckless or worse. See my response at User:Abd/Response to Raul654, which quotes his full evidence section. In short, his evidence sucks. Read it and weep, for Raul654 is about as highly privileged an editor as exists, and that he's been allowed to get away with this for so long is a tragedy. "Attempted to derail dispute resolution proceedings?" I attracted negative cabal attention when I was completely uninvolved, and I read RfC/GoRight and was completely horrified at what was being done, so I compiled evidence, neutral evidence, evidence that was never impeached, and that was, on the contrary, commended by the uninvolved editors, including two who are now sitting arbitrators, and entirely opposed by cabal editors. This polarization is typical of the cabal, and you can see it here in this RfAr. --Abd (talk)

extended comment by Abd

At that point, I was looking at those who had edit warred with GoRight and when they supported the RfC written, like the bad evidence section cited, by Raul654, and certified, as the above is supported, by WMC. WMC doesn't compile evidence, he's too much of a block 'em, I don't need no stinkin' evidence or reason, kind of administrator. Sure, GoRight was grateful. Sure, he's going to speak up when he sees me being deceptively attacked. But it's not, unlike the cabal, because of shared POV, I think our POV on his major interest, Global warming, is opposing. He has no POV, as far as I'm aware, about Cold fusion. No, it's because I'm standing up for basic wiki principles and policies, as enunciated by ArbComm and as defied by the cabal, openly in many cases. These are people who supported ScienceApologist, not only in his good work, and there was much of that, but in his defiance of policies, and they complained about sanctions against him and considered it a shame, that ArbComm had gone down the tubes. I trust ArbComm, and they don't. If ArbComm decides that I'm disruptive, I'm out of here, because, like Socrates, I believe in consensus, and ArbComm is the closest device we have for estimating large-scale consensus. My work is to improve that, that's why I proposed delegable proxy, it's a possible way to deal with the participation bias problems that make the cabal as disruptive as it is, and the same structures used as the related Asset voting could be used to create a content review body that would represent true, broad, editorial consensus. Without contested elections. No losers. (No, delegable proxy isn't vulnerable to manipulation by sock puppets, the opposite, but that will take some explaining, and it won't be here). And all this is highly threatening to the cabal, because they can maintain their agenda by preventing such large-scale consensus from forming. Fortunately, they are not seriously organized, or it might be hopeless. --Abd (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Mutual trolling societies are harmful to the project. Raul654 (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject - This is as ridiculous as Raul's claims on his WP:ATTACKPAGE page (a policy violation ... and note that Raul does not accuse me of misinterpreting that). This is also a prime example of his modus operandi. The fact that Abd and I tend to "participate" in some of the same proceedings is obviously an attempt on our part to "derail" the proceedings. We have our own little two person cabal, it seems, and Raul fears we may destroy the project. At least that's the view from inside Raul's myopically POV world. It would be amusing to write a parallel to Raul's screeds (here and on the evidence page) titled "Raul/WMC/SS/KDP/... Majority POV Pushing Society" and I could easily provide just as many examples (probably more) of where those same individuals support one another's positions in dispute resolution proceedings. However unlike some individuals who engage in disruptive activities for their own amusement, I do not. Last but not least, could Raul please explain how this is even relevant to the case at hand, or is he just using this proceeding as a stage to get attention for himself or his own amusement? --GoRight (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Last but not least, could Raul please explain how this is even relevant to the case at hand - because it gives the arbitrators a good idea of how much credibility to assign to your statements -- namely, none. Raul654 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Looks that way to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Yes it seems like it. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can say that when I see one the other is usually nearby. I've been curious about why this is.. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  Common interests. Common views. Nothing surprising or nefarious. --GoRight (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to GoRight. I could understand your response with "Common interest. Common views." if the two of you were meeting in article space, whether talk or article. But the two of you appear together it seems everywhere, including boards, multiple editors talk pages and so on. The common interest in those are defense of each other, this can't be denied, sorry but that's what I see at least lately. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  "The common interest in those are defense of each other, this can't be denied ..." - It can be denied, and I am doing so now. The common interest is generally related to a discussion of some aspect of relevant policy, not each other. To the extent that Abd and I share common views or interpretations of policy and have a common interest in helping others who are the victims of misinterpretations of those policies (i.e. such as the Wilhelmina Will case) the fact that we show up together should be considered unremarkable. I will openly admit that I pay attention to Abd's contributions for this very reason. He stumbles across such cases regularly and so he acts as a sort of automated filter for myself. No harm in that. As for the assertion that we show up "everywhere" together this is ridiculous. Simply review my history on Global Warming. While Abd may appear from time to time there is clearly no real correlation in our editing. Why? Because in that area we DON'T have common views OR common interests. Similarly for Cold Fusion. I have not provided any content to that page since I have little interest in it, whereas Abd does. Our overlap even in that case is related to the correct interpretation and application of policies. That is not "defending each other" as you would call it. --GoRight (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Response to WMC "For whatever reason, GR has chosen to pile in on Abd's side, and is completely ignoring Abd's many flaws. So, support" - We are all entitled to our opinions and I certainly don't begrudge you yours. I believe that the evidence I am compiling is in as neutral a form as it can be made. I have not expressed any opinions related to your behavior in the underlying area of discussion as defined by the scope of this case, at least none that I can recall right now. So to say that I have taken Abd's side is at least somewhat inaccurate on your part.

  I admit that I have defended Abd against what would appear to me to be personal attacks or unfair misrepresentations of his behavior, but I would do the same for anyone if I noticed an injustice being committed. The bulk of my comments (excepting those related to Raul's disruption of these proceedings and off topic proposals made in the pursuit of sanctions against myself) and all of my proposals have focused strictly on principles based on or surrounding the interpretation of existing policy. I do not regard that as having taken sides either. YMMV, and apparently does. So be it. --GoRight (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  GoRight claims I am disrupting these proceedings. All of my proposals have unanimous or near unanimous support (excluding Abd and GoRight, obviously), while GoRight has yet to convince a single person that any of his proposals have merit. I will leave it as an exercise to the reader of this to determine who is being disruptive here. Raul654 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, Raul, it is true that the same names seem to be appearing in unanimous or near unanimous support of your proposals. Hmmm. Regardless, I am not seeking popular support here but rather good policy and good precedent. The arbiter's are the one's who shall decide which proposals have merit and which do not. If my proposals have no merit with them then they shall be ignored and no harm done. That does not make them disruptive. The inappropriate pursuit of personal grudges unrelated to this case is, IMHO of course, another matter. --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Raul, it is true that the same names seem to be appearing in unanimous or near unanimous support of your proposals. - if by "the same names" you mean "most everyone who has commented on this case but me and Abd", sure.

  Regardless, I am not seeking popular support here but rather good policy and good precedent. - I suppose I must have missed those, because all I've seen from you so far is attempts to rewrite policy to validate yours and Abd's previous violations of the meatpuppetry policy.

  The arbiter's are the one's who shall decide which proposals have merit and which do not. - I see no reason to expect them to consider your proposals any more valid than everyone else, all of whom have rejected them as transparent attempts to rewrite policy to make meatpuppetry acceptable.

  If my proposals have no merit with them then they shall be ignored and no harm done. That does not make them disruptive. - actually, when other people have waste time debunking your false claims about policy, harm is done. When other people have to waste time debunking your false statements about Abd's behavior, harm is done. Both of the above behaviors are disruptive. But frankly, no reasonable person has so far bought into any of your claims (about anything - policy or facts, including claims that your own behavior is OK), so I'll just end this thread here and let the arbitrators deal with you. They're reasonable people and they won't have any trouble seeing through your (thin) smokescreen. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Just a quick observation for you. If you were to stop doing those things then the supposed harm would drop to zero. Nobody's twisting your arm here, I assume. I know that I am not. I trust that the arbiters are quite able to read and make their own judgments sans your input. --GoRight (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  Letting your many falsehoods stand unchallenged would be even more disruptive to the arbitration process than debunking them. Raul654 (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nonsense. No evidence of such. Please assume good faith and try for genuine dialogue rather than trying to legislate away opinions you disagree with. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Supporting a position is not "derailing". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• No evidence of such. - false.

  Please assume good faith - This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. -- Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Raul654 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  and try for genuine dialogue rather than trying to legislate away opinions you disagree with. - genuine dialog has been tried by many people with Abd. It fills many, many archive pages. Yet he continues to violate Wikipedia guidelines, personally attacking anyone he disagrees with, labeling them as part of a "cabal". This is not to mention Abd's penchant for claiming to be involved in a dispute with everyone (so as to dissuade admins from punishing him for his misbehavior). Raul654 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, do you or do you not approve of behaviour which has been variously referred to as "cabal" or "mutual trolling society", i.e. a pattern of supporting particular people? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Your question makes an incorrect supposition, by equating the "mutual trolling society" behavior I identified with Abd's allegations of a cabal. Mutual trolling society behavior is the tendancy of disruptive users to support each other against sanctions for their misbehavior regardless of the evidence. (Gee, there wouldn't happen to be any of that going on around here, would there?) On the other hand, Abd's "cabal" consists of all the editors who oppose his misbehavior (none of whom are disruptive), regardless of whether or not they've ever interacted with each other before. The two are most certainly not the same thing. I oppose the former. I don't really care about the latter because it's figment of Abd's imagination, a kind of wiki-persecution complex. Raul654 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This should perhaps be coupled with a Principle that supporting or opposing based anything based on users rather than arguments should be avoided. I of course cannot speak to the private motivations in the instances presented by Raul654, but much as with meatpuppetry sometimes actions can be more important than motivations. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not sure about the wording of this, but I believe that GoRight and now apparently Coppertwig's blind support of Abd are doing nothing to help the problem. Its one thing to support another editor, its quite another to continue supporting them even when there is clear evidence that they are in the wrong. While Coppertwig seems to have limited their advocacy mainly to this case, GoRight does seem to appear in every discussion tangentially about Abd and his behavior toes the line on disruptive in those areas. Shell ^babelfish 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please clarify your definition of "disruptive". I fail to see how pointing out the actual text embodied in relevant policy or asking what might appear to be "embarrassing questions" of those seeking actions against Abd is "disruptive", that is unless one considers applying the light of day to otherwise questionable claims to be "disruptive". Can you provide some examples where I have done anything more than this? Perhaps I could clarify my intent there. --GoRight (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose of all of the really bad proposals, this is probably the worst. Raul refered to these interaction on the evidence page with the NPA violating term "mutual trolling societies" Mat, an editor who himself benefited from one of Connolleys dozens of controversial blocks, refered to this interaction as "small tag teams". I am quite suprised a former arbitor would even suggest such a loaded, personal attack, but then again, Connolley can get away with abusing and flaunting the rules for years, so I shouldn't be that surprised. I debunk this dangerous and irrational proposal here: mutual trolling societies and small tag teams. Raul is attacking both editors because they defend each other. It is no different than the way Raul is a loyal defender of Connolley, as I document in my evidence section. Of all the proposals this one shows most vividly how defenders of Connolley's repeated abuses in his defense will throw as much mud at the wall and see what will stick.
  I don't understand, in Raul's opinion it is okay to say blanant personal attacks, calling editors actions "mutual trolling societies" but yet editors can't call other editors cabals?
  In Mat's case, isn't it a little hyprocicritical in one section to mock one editor's claim of a cabal and in another section call these same editors a small tag team?
  Isn't Raul and Mat simply calling these editors a cabal, without actually using the word cabal?
  It appears the only mistake Abd made in arguing there was collusion between editors, was to use the word "cabal". Instead, he should have accused other editors of colluision using the "former arbcom approved" personal attack "mutual trolling societies".
  Ikip (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please use my username Mathsci, not Mat. I provided diffs in my evidence. I don't think there's too much doubt that Coppertwig and GoRight have supported almost all of Abd's actions on WP. The collective term used for their little group is not that important. Those claimed to be in the cabal (the membership of which varies according to the day and possibly the position of the moon) do not form a mutual support group; the only thing they seem to have in common is that they have all criticized Abd's behaviour on WP independently. No need to confuse things, particularly when those on Abd's list are all involved in quite diverse and separate activities on WP. Mathsci (talk)

• Agree Wizzy…☎ 06:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd has driven away subject matter experts

Abd has actively driven away subject matter experts from cold fusion articles, at least one of whom has cited Abd by name as the reason he quit.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Sadly, yes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree, the impossible-to-follow talk page and the continuous whitewashing by CF advocates has driven away both experts and non-experts, see evidence here. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Follow the byzantine path of the diffs and you will find that the editor "driven away" was Woonpton, whom I've defined as a cabal editor, but one who stopped serious editing long before I arrived at Cold fusion. Driven away because the project started to enforce civility standards, take a look at User:Abd/Cabal#Woonpton, I happen to have compiled that little bit. (Woonpton is not an administrator and would be, by herself, harmless or even useful, but has the idea that Wikipedia is coddling fringe POV-pushers, and she's shown the cabal characteristics in what little editing she's done, such as substantial contributions to RfAr/Fringe science. I did not drive her away. She decided long ago to stay away, my guess is that she can't stand the discussion, but discussion is not a necessary part of non-disruptive editing. All you have to do is have some cooperating editors, if she wanted to assist the cabal in making sure that POV-pushers don't carry away Cold fusion, she could make edits to the article providing sources, etc., and even if someone reverted, someone else could carry on the discussion. The cabal has a legitimate function, and that would be it. Cooperation. Where it gets illegitimate is where it tries to control or dominate.)
• As to the case cited by Raul, User:Kirk shanahan is a COI editor, uncivil and condescending, and I've encouraged him to explain his Calibration Constant Shift theory, and I might be the only editor who understood him. You might be surprised. He considers the Pons-Fleischmann effect to be a real anomaly, though non-nuclear. That is, his explanation involves an unexplained effect, theorized and not proven. I restored his papers to the bibliography. He's a rare bird, and therefore a precious one, a critic of cold fusion who has recently published under peer review. Unfortunately, he's highly biased, but he stopped editing the article before I arrived. The really bad version that Woonpton supported in her transient vote was suggested by him and largely written by him. No, he hasn't been driven away, though he complains about this or that, but he's disgusted. By our editorial policies. Even when the article is largely controlled by critics, as it has been since Pcarbonn was banned. People aren't driven away by talk on the talk page, generally. They leave when they find that nothing they do is effective, they aren't able to get content into the article and have it stay. He'd written a subarticle on Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, which was fairly good, though it needed work. It was AfD'd by JzG and deleted, as I recall. There is a copy at User:Abd/Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, I've intended to clean it up and try to get it restored. I didn't delete it, Pcarbonn didn't delete it (he suggested it or created it, I think, so that Shanahan could focus on more detail than would be appropriate in the main article. Deleted. That's what drives editors away! In any case, his theory is sufficiently notable that we should cover it. It's notable because there was response to it in a peer-reviewed journal, besides its own existence in that journal as primary source. It's mentioned in some other papers, I think, such as the 2004 DoE review document by Hagelstein.
• As to Mathsci's comment below, I can comment on Shanahan's positions because I know the recent literature, at least to a degree. His theories don't involve difficult science, they are not abstruse, though it's easy to misunderstand them, But Shanahan makes many comments that are flat-out contradictory to what's in the literature, which makes me think that he's not familiar with the current research, or he's not absorbing it. Now, Mathsci, how do you know enough to criticize my comments on Shanahan? You have never shown any familiarity with cold fusion research, which is a huge field, there are about 3000 published papers, as I recall, with some surprising recent developments. Your expertise would presumably be with the mathematics used in quantum mechanics. If we are lucky, quantum electrodynamics or quantum field theory. Perhaps you'd be qualified to review the work of Takahashi on Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate, but you've declined to look at it. So far, anyway. In any case, as to the point here, I certainly did not drive away Shanahan, the timing doesn't fit at all; but what I did do was confront Shanahan on the incompleteness of his explanations and the contradictions between what he was asserting and what's actually in the literature being discussed. If I was wrong, his explanation would benefit all of us. But some experts can't stand being challenged. The best actually appreciate it, because it creates teaching moments. If we can record that, and get it into the article, assuming it can be sourced, we'd have made the article much less likely to be misunderstood.
• My position on experts is that they are generally COI and should advise us, not edit articles unless it's not controversial. (Experts may create a lot of good articles, where troubles start is where they try, as Mathsci does, to OWN the article. If an expert can't convince ordinary editors to keep the article the way he or she wants, the article isn't well written or it's OR!) The best position for experts is as advisors, and if we were strict with COI guidelines, that would be practically automatic. Pcarbonn is, I think, a cold fusion researcher now (I don't know whether he was before). A scientist. COI editors are presumed to advocate a POV, to have a kind of agenda. We made a mistake to ban him from Talk. We allowed ScienceApologist to edit Talk! (His topic ban was only from article pages). We need the advice of these people, and it's a shame that SA didn't work on the cold fusion article by advising us in talk. I'm sure he'd have been easier to deal with than his supposed supporter, Hipocrite. But SA was, at that point, blocked for disruption. He's back, and welcome to be so, by me. --Abd (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Subject matter experts are a rare and valuable resource to the project. I can think of nothing so harmful to the project as Abd's behavior in this regard. Raul654 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• This seems to be the case. See Kirk Shanahan's email quoted below. In discussions with experts who have simple points to make (EdChem, Kirk Shanahan), Abd does not appear to be taking in what they are saying and instead talks about unrelated things. He dismisses Shanahan as narrow: how can he make such an evaluation? It appears the two experts above agree on the cautious evaluation of sources on fringe science: Abd has been unwilling to accept this and his persistent meandering and evasive discussions do not create a fruitful environment for editing. His absence from cold fusion since the topic ban has seen a return to normal conditions of editing. Experts in chemistry are likely to be very irritated by Abd's frequent statements that cold fusion deserves to have many new articles written on it to chart the progress of this emerging science. However, this seems to be his personal view - so far there seems to be little evidence that it reflects cold fusion's place in mainstream science. The constant repetition of these extreme fringe views is unhelpful and disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC) Abd has never written a non-stubbed article in his wiki-life. His accusations of article ownership show an evident confusion about what happens while creating the first draft of a long article, with "inuse-section" templates in place. Perhaps if he had created or made substantial edits to non-stub uncontroversial mainstream articles he would have a little more clue. His comments are off-topic and probably designed to cause offence (aka WP:BAIT).
• Reject Subject matter experts who argue against Wikipedia Policy we do not need. Shanahan's complaint is not with Abd, he names several people calling them all wiki-lawyers, and then adds this: "In order to get a NPOV article, the RS rule must be relaxed to take this situation into account, and no one seems to be willing to do that. So, any time I try to contribute, I get Wikilawyered." I guess you missed that part, Raul. Hmmm. A subject matter expert that wants to add material for which he cannot produce a WP:RS. That sounds like a likely WP:COI to me, like he has some WP:OR that he wants Wikipedia to endorse. Shouldn't the User:Pcarbonn topic ban be applied to him given that it seems others want it to be applied to Jed Rothwell for those exact reasons? --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is a subject-matter expert grappling with the limits and edge cases of Wikipedia's content policies. Kirk's summary of the problem:

no one is doing _any_ work in the field except the fanatics (who have abandoned critical review), and thus _no_ negative articles get published and there is no base of information for news reporters to use to write cogent descriptions of the mainstream side. Yet a chemist can look at the pro-CF papers that are published and tick off multiple problems in analytical technique that invalidate the _conclusions_ presented in the papers, and it is those conclusions that end up in news reports and in Wiki articles.

In other words, our basic content policies are in tension with one another. We want to present a neutral, properly weighted and contextualized view of cold fusion (per WP:NPOV). However, the only people publishing on the topic are what Kirk termed "fanatics", restricting the available range of reliable sources such that simply counting them yields a false, non-neutral impression of the true state of knowledge and expert opinion. That's a real problem, cogently expressed by someone with actual expertise who has presumably left Wikipedia, and I'd be a little hesitant to disregard it as "he didn't want to follow our policies, so good riddance." I think he wanted to follow our policies, but found them in irreconcilable tension in this case. MastCell ^Talk 20:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all well and good. Are you suggesting that any of this is Abd's fault, and hence Abd is the cause of the subject matter expert leaving as this proposal asserts? If not, then I would ask that you clarify your comment accordingly.

I otherwise stand by my assertion. If Shanahan is unwilling or unable, regardless of the reasons, to follow the established standards and policies like everyone else is expected to do then we don't need him. This appears to me to be a case of the Majority POV Pushers (used as a general category and not aimed any anyone specifically) being stymied by their own standards. Anyone who has followed this debate knows full well that the scientists still conducting research in this field have NOT abandoned critical review. There are papers being published in legitimate peer-reviewed sources. The fact that the sources favored amongst Shanahan and his supporters here have (apparently) consciously chosen to not publish articles in this area is no one's fault but their own, and it most certainly is not the fault of Abd. --GoRight (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject: the word "actively" could be interpreted as implying that Abd intended to drive someone away, which I don't believe for a second. In the diff given, Abd was mentioned only in a list of several editors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Would you support this proposal if the word "actively" were deleted? Raul654 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair question, but no, and I would still reject it if "experts" was replaced by "expert" to match the number of such people mentioned in the evidence; see the second sentence of my comment. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse What Raul654 says at the start of this subsection. Sadly, the problem of recognizing the limits of one's own expertise being what it is, I see no easy resolution to encouraging experts to be long-term content contributors in their field of expertise. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's personal attacks

Abd has made numerous personal attacks against other editors, both on-wiki and off-wiki

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Support, see also the warnings received by Abd, search for "personal attacks", and see other examples of other bad behaviour towards other editors. See also accusations to admins. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• I wasn't sure if I should include Abd's hypocrisy in claiming to applaud the civility restrictions here and then going to WR to make personal attacks, but I decided not to. The FOF is clear enough as is. Raul654 (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Attacking the clerk [11] does not seem a very good way to proceed. If Abd had any kind of convincing arguments - apart from his wholly unsupported statements about a "cabal" - he would not need to resort to this kind of highly offensive, tendentious and disruptive editing. Abd does not seem to show any awareness that his behaviour is confrontational and highly unconstructive. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse When his wikilawyering doesn't bear fruit, Abd often takes out his frustration in the form of personal attacks though sometimes he does wait and take them off-site. Its not very becoming and indicative of the core problem - inability to compromise and respect consensus. Shell ^babelfish 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, patently true, documented in /Evidence, and needs to be stated. As a side note, some leeway during resolution of protracted intractable disputes is understandable, but some of the comments during this case are really beyond the pale. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd ignores warnings

Abd has received a huge number of warnings from a multitude of other users about his conduct, but has persisted in his disruptive behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• The sheer number of warnings is staggering. Raul654 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't consider Abd's behaviour to be disruptive. Abd has indeed modified his behaviour in response to feedback. As I point out in another section, the first two sentences of Abd's comment here show willingness to comply with a warning from an administrator. He has posted many concise comments, which takes effort; he has refactored comments in response to feedback; and he has brought this matter to Arbcom more promptly than the previous case, in response to an Arbcom remedy urging him to avoid prolonging disputes. Furthermore, you yourself, Raul654, pointed out that sometimes warnings don't quality. [12] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse That is a big part of why we are here, yes. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse This is precisely why arbitration was necessary. While I agree with Coppertwig that Abd seems to agree to make changes, reality seems to be different - Abd slips back into the same behaviors repeatedly and unfortunately often discards the warnings by deciding the warner is part of a "cabal", or "involved". His inability to process feedback should be fairly obvious just from his behavior during this case. Shell ^babelfish 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Abd seems to have decided that all warnings come from some giant conspiracy or cabal. Mathsci (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd does not believe he's done anything wrong

Abd does not believe he's done anything wrong:

• "I have no problem with an "admonishment," even if I didn't do anything wrong." - [13]
• "I'm not accepting that I deserve [restrictions on my behavior]" - [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• See also "Abd sees no problem at all with any of his editing, and does not admit having a problem" and the two sections below it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• If he cannot recognize his own misdeeds, I don't see much of a case here that he can be reformed. Raul654 (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd considers bans to be a warning which he can disregard

Abd considers administrative bans to be warnings which can be disregarded: Administrative bans are really warnings, and when an editor perceives that a warning is being issued by an administrator who is involved or has some axe to grind, the warning is likely to be disregarded. - [15]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• His comment gives a good insight into his misbehavior and repeated breaching experiments. Raul654 (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Abd banned

1) Abd is banned from Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Abd is a net negative to the project. When he was a fairly quiet net negative, that was merely irritating but tolerable. Now he seems determined to be a noisy net negative, this would appear to be the best solution William M. Connolley (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A one year full ban could finally make him get the message that he has to change his behaviour in order to collaborate productively in wikipedia. And he woldn't be able to re-interpret it as an endorsement of his position, like he did with the advice in the last case (see #6 of here in evidence). The evidence I found shows that advising, encouraging, criticizing, etc, has gone on for months with no effect, and no acknowledgement of being a problem in his editing. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, a shorter full ban could serve the same purpose. Also, this has to be coupled with an indefinite ban from Cold fusion and its talk page, and from editing policy pages and their talk pages. If he wants to edit those again, he has to ask for a review of his edits by the community or by Arbcom. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He contributes little and causes many problems. Clearly a case of someone we are better off without. Raul654 (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Its hard to see anything that Abd has contributed recently that hasn't been a ridiculous drain on other editor's time and energy. Their abject refusal to adapt their approach to meet the needs of other editors is unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

On a technical point, ArbCom has traditionally issued bans only up to one year. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently they have been banning outright. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately at present his own private agenda seems to take precedence over wikipedia policies. His net contribution is negative at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject. Abd has provided tireless services to the project and always seeks to find a fair and reasonable position duly supported by discussion and consensus. This is the ideal of the project and his efforts should be commended, not punished. --GoRight (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Approve Abd has been a disruptive influence on the cold fusion talk page, and dismisses criticism. For example, after I suggested he write shorter text on the cold fusion talk page and focus on the main article, he responded with this: [16]. Olorinish (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Undecided Weak support at the moment but leaning towards this if necessary. The dif above from Olorinish is some of what I've seen that tells me that Abd has too strong an agenda that he wants to go forward with if this case goes his way. I feel that Abd feels he has done a lot 'of research' on this subject that he feels he is an expert of sorts to build this article and more. I also don't like the feeling I'm getting that Abd is experimenting with the project towards some goal he has. This case has a feel like when Guido was experimenting with the project which was also rejected. I really think that Abd needs to start reading and listening to what the other editors are saying to him. After reading some of the responses below mine, I have to say I changed to a weak support. I also know about Wilhelmina Will and Abd sort of bulldozed into that. Did he help keep her here yes, I think that Wilhelmina Will is still here but if I remember correctly other editors also helped her to understand that what she was doing was not right and that she had to stop what she was doing until she understood all of the issues that were causing concerns for so many. So yes, Abd did help but I think a lot of editors also felt that Abd wasn't helping in a lot of ways too. As for the link also supplied about the surprise at being blocked for the edit/revert block, the editor Abd suggested it to refused it outright at the time as did others who said 'no' to the idea of editing while blocked/banned. I don't have the link right now but will supply upon request though Coppertwig may have it already linked below, not sure. So I have changed my post here accordingly. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject. Abd provides significant benefit to the project. Wilhelmina Will is still editing today, but likely would have been lost to the project if not for Abd's intervention. Abd has put a lot of work into studying cold fusion, buying books on the topic, and can contribute a lot to the cold fusion articles (for example, one of the articles he created, Robert Duncan (physicist)^{(21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC))}). Often Abd's proposals gain consensus after discussion, for example in this discussion which involved a convenience link to lenr-canr.org, a site which had been mistakenly blacklisted. Abd listens to others, respects consensus and modifies his behaviour in response to feedback. (Examples: "at that point I believed that the community had a consensus on harmless edits" [17] and "The goal is consensus between us, not a specific content decision" [18]). Abd's dedication to finding consensus by listening to views on all sides inspired me with the optimism to start a set of compromise proposed placename guidelines which gained a surprising amount of support in what had seemed a hopelessly polarized situation and have recently been made policy (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank)).
The way to avoid having too much material included about minority views on cold fusion is to make convincing arguments about due weight and reliable sources, not to ban a series of editors who make opposing arguments nor criticize people for not finding the arguments convincing. Rather than banning, try modifying policy to restrict the allowed lengths of posts if that's the problem. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides: no valid reason for banning has been given, such as clear violations of warnings from uninvolved administrators about policy or guideline violations. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer restrictions upon which a later ban is based should they be violated (i.e. if not violated he could continue to edit) - particularly with regard to wikilawyering and personal attacks. Orderinchaos 16:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  Would you apply those restrictions to only Abd or to everyone equally? I have seen some long posts made by others who are likewise party to this case. Should the same restrictions be applied to them as well, or even made globally applicable? Thou shall not make posts greater that 200 words in length? Seems a bit arbitrary and unworkable to me, but if fairly applied and the Arbiters find merit in it I would certainly make an effort to comply. --GoRight (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Given the entire issue is related to the continuing behaviour of a particular individual, I would say it should apply to the one individual. The reason I do not favour a ban is that I believe he is working in good faith, just at a radical tangent to the project at the present. I admit to my own share of long posts, although I tend to keep them for when they're needed. Orderinchaos 17:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I feel this is too strong. While I disagree with much of Coppertwig's claim, above, (I'm not convinced that all of Abd's work with Wilhelmina Will was exemplorary, and in particular I've seen little evidence that he really does listen to others) I acknowledge that Abd has done some excellent work under the right circumstances, with a number of editors being clearly very grateful for his assistance. I'm hoping that a lesser move than a total ban will help to curtail some of the problems with his editing. - Bilby (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'd like to see something less dramatic tried first. Abd has made good contributions; if he could be limited from those areas in which he is "crusading" and his interaction becomes problematic, he might go back to contributing. I'd really like to see much more time spent with articles if he's truly interested in becoming part of this community. As it is, the amount of time Abd spends on project, article and user talk pages is far out of balance (less than 20% in article space by my count). Shell ^babelfish 22:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Reject for now It's clear looking at Abd's contribution that content work has been at a minimum over recent months - mostly spending time preparing complaints as in this one. banning outright would be draconian imo; the message needs to get across that whilst his actions I have no doubt are in good faith, the way he goes about it is becoming disruptive - for example the polls debacle. Restrictions on Cold Fusion would solve that particular issue but not the underlying issue. Minkythecat (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as second choice to #Abd is topic banned, below. Abd currently represents a disruptive influence and drain on the volunteer time of other editors. Whatever fixes this will benefit the project. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Wizzy…☎ 06:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight prohibited from intervening in dispute resolution proceedings to which he is not a party

2) GoRight is prohibited from intervening in any dispute resolution proceeding (including but not limited to noticeboard threads, RFCs, or arbcom proceedings) in which he is not named as an involved party. GoRight is prohibited from requesting to be added as a party to such proceedings.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• With some regret, yes, because he has been so unhelpful to this case William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, in the ANI ban review, his comments were unhelpful, and I had this conversation in my talk page where I had to point out many many inaccuracies and omissions in the "facts" he presented to me. I don't think that his input is reliable for DR, and I don't want to waste so much time pointing out all his mistakes, only to have him generate more inaccurate "facts" to pursue the same point. This is not about freedom of speech, this is about efficency in getting disputes solved so we can write articles better. GoRight is throwing sand in the cogs of DR, continuously throwing inaccurate statements that other persons have to correct. Also, not understanding policy, or trying to reinforce it in ways that go against its spirit or against current practice, with no clear benefit to actually writing articles. That is not helpful and it should be stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Needed in response to the "Abd/GoRight disruption of dispute resolution proceedings" FOF above. Raul654 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rude and uncalled for: People can make their opinions known wherever they wish, and the decision makers can weight them accordingly. Calling someone a troll and saying their opinions merit no weight are personal attacks and everything that's been said about GoRight following Abd around and defending him could be said about you and WMC. That you are an admin and GoRight is not does not give you any more right to give your opinion in a dispute resolution setting than he has. Oren0 (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

people can make their opinions known wherever they wish, and the decision makers can weight them accordingly. - aye, they are, and I'm making sure they have *all* the facts -- including GoRight's previous history of throwing sand in the gears of the dispute resolution process where Abd is concerned.

everything that's been said about GoRight following Abd around and defending him could be said about you and WMC - except that (a) I don't follow WMC around, and (b) I have not defended him. In fact, I haven't so much as mentioned his name in a single post here.

Calling someone a troll and saying their opinions merit no weight are personal attacks - see Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade, and specifically Users too often cite policies, like our policy against personal attacks and our policy against incivility, not to protect themselves from personal attacks, but to protect their edits from review.

That you are an admin and GoRight is not does not give you any more right to give your opinion in a dispute resolution setting than he has. - nice non-sequitur there. Nowhere did I say that admin opinions should count more than non-admins -- I said that GoRight's opinion should count for nothing because based on his past history, his comments are (a) mostly fallacious, and (b) designed to obstruct the dispute resolution process. Raul654 (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, I'd like to see this sort of remedy implemented more often and more aggressively by ArbCom across the board. Any parties who are consistently contributing far more heat than light to any proceedings ought to be given the boot. (A variation on this theme was extremely effective in one of the Everyking cases.) I wonder, however, if this ought not start out as an injunction – temporary or permanent – so as to offer immediate relief to the participants in this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but it has to be proposed by the parties to the case. Enric or WMC - as parties to this case, would you please suggest an injunction prohibiting GoRight from further participation in this case? Raul654 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbcomm need to take this case by the scruff of the neck and wring some sense from it. I've tried to help but alas my help was seen not to be helpful - it is up to them now William M. Connolley (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject: This is a blatant attempt to stifle dissent. Agreeing with Abd is not a bannable offense.^{(13:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC))} We reach consensus by discussion, not by banning the expression of viewpoints some people disagree with. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a blatant attempt to stifle dissent - On the contrary, it's an attempt to prevent GoRight from exhibiting his usual behavior of disrupting DR proceedings against Abd. Agreeing with Abd is not a bannable offense - no, but lying about Abd's actions is. Raul654 (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"Lying"? Perhaps a better wording would be that your opinion differs from GoRight's about some situations? Perhaps you'd care to give examples? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to pick one incontrovertible example (made 2 days after GoRight's workshop proposal)- here Abd states that "We have a claim that Arkady Renkov is a sockpuppet, but no identification of the puppet master, nor any clear confirmation of policy violation". Abd's first clause ("We have a claim that Arkady Renkov is a sockpuppet") is false because Arkady explicitly admitted that she was a sockpuppet earlier in that very thread; the second clause is irrelevant; and the third clause (nor any clear confirmation of policy violation) is a wholly false statement about policy - "sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings." --Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. So there you go - a crystal clear example of Abd making a false claim about policy, which demolishes GoRight's claims that Abd's statements about policy are always accurate. Raul654 (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied to Coppertwig here. In essense, Coppertwig is trying to redefine "sockpuppet" to be malicious and prohibited by definition, so as to render vacous the statement in the sockpuppetry policy that sockpuppets are prohibited from participating on policy pages. Raul654 (talk) 05:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replied here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Note - prior arbitration proceedings have defined sockpuppetry the same way I am using it (The use of sockpuppet accounts, while not generally forbidden, is discouraged.), and contrary to Coppertwig's attempt to redefine it (thus blowing a gigantic hole in his argument). Raul654 (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Tenofalltrades - we need more of these sorts of remedies for people who genuinely do not assist the cases to which they are added. Orderinchaos 16:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"we need more of these sorts of remedies for people who genuinely do not assist the cases to which they are added." - I am not actually clear on what you mean by this, can you please elaborate? --GoRight (talk) 16:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. GoRight, if you look at some of the noise surrounding this case, you seem to be smack in the middle of a lot of it. Especially you and Raul. If the two of you need, and it sure seems like it to an outsider, I think maybe both of you should do a DR yourselves, but you both definitely need to stop it here in this case. I really don't think this is at all helping Abd or WMC, look for yourselves. I personally can't say right now anymore than I've already said, which I think is clear enough about this, I think GoRight would do everyone a favor if s/he found something different to do than this case. Of course this is just my opinion right now. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  If I am being disruptive here, I am quite certain that I can expect to be appropriately admonished or sanctioned as the arbiters see fit.

  I have already stated that I believe that much of Raul's commentary in pursuit of his personal grudges is off topic. I can certainly see how my replies to him can be seen as enabling his continued pursuit of those matters in this forum. I clearly wish that these off-topic points and proposals had not been made but once they were I feel I have a right to respond to them.

  I find the following portions of your comment interesting, "Especially you and Raul." as well as "I think GoRight would do everyone a favor if s/he found something different to do than this case." You clearly state that BOTH I and Raul have been generating noise here and yet you only call for me to go away. Can you please clarify why? --GoRight (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Enric "GoRight is throwing sand in the cogs of DR" - That which you and Raul seek to call "sand" is nothing more than a clear statement of the facts which are easily verified. The fact that these may be "inconvenient" for those who would seek to have them ignored and forgotten does not make them sand, nor does it make them disruptive IMHO. That which you call "efficiency" is nothing more than censoring the voices who would oppose you in the debate. I would certainly agree that things would be "efficient" if you never had to support your claims here or anywhere else. Others can decide for themselves whether this constitutes Cabal-like behavior, or WP:TAGTEAM behavior, or anything at all for the matter. As I point out elsewhere, you are the one seeking to have people banned or shut out of the discussion, not your opponents. --GoRight (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That which you and Raul seek to call "sand" is nothing more than a clear statement of the facts which are easily verified. - your "clear statements of fact" and reality have little to do with each other. Raul654 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to let impartial observers such as the arbiters to sort out whose statements reflect reality, and whose do not. --GoRight (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• This looks like an effective way to reduce disruption without a high cost in novel ideas or work left to other editors. I am not convinced by the prohibited from requesting to be added as a party just in case they are mistakenly omitted from proceedings in which they have a legitimate long-standing interest. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Amend. Every area tends to get piling on occuring - here, RFA's. It's a common problem within wikipedia. Whilst I don't believe GoRight has helped here, I'd prefer the proposal to be amended to cover all editors. I suspect the piling on problem isn't necessarily within scope if this particular problem. Minkythecat (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of GoRight prohibition on participation in dispute resolution processes other than his own

1) If GoRight participates in a dispute resolution proceeding to which he is not a party (to be interpreted broadly), or if he should request to be added as a party to one, any uninvolved administrator may summarily remove his comments and block him for any period of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement proposal for the GoRight remedy above. Raul654 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject. Way harsher than necessary, even if the remedy is approved. There's no need for a block to last beyond the end of the proceeding. A warning before a block is probably a good idea. Arbitration committee remedies usually do not last longer than a year. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

  GoRight, like Abd, doesn't abide by warnings, so there's no sense in giving him any. As for being harsh - yes, that's the idea -- he's not supposed to do it, and if he does, he gets punished. Eventually, he'll learn not to do it. Raul654 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:William M. Connolley

Proposed principles

WP:BURO

1) WP:BURO is reaffirmed: Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Compare the somewhat similar/related proposals I made under principles and remedies on the workshop in the Abd and JzG case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Generally I'm strongly against the pointless reaffirmation of policy, but this one seems to get forgotten far too readily and people need reminding William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be better to provide a short summary here rather than simply "we have this policy" - that's the usual way these principles are handled. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've plucked out some of the bits I like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree, but it needs a short summary, like Hersfold says. now it's good. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support, with a caveat: increasingly, as the language of the policies and guidelines matures, it should, in theory, become increasingly accurate as to actual practice; substantial deviation between the text of policy and the practice is harmful to the project, as editors will expect, for example, to be protected against administrative abuse by the "letter of the law." The proper balance between IAR, which is essentially the normal discretion of the executive function, and "equal protection under the law" is one which always involves some tension. I have not argued that WMC could not ban me under IAR. It's remarkable that he seems to assert, on the one hand, that his ban was proper under that principle, but, on the other, that this was not his reason (perhaps I'll come back with diffs.) However, IAR isn't restricted to administrators, it applies to all editors, and the problem arises when an admin takes a tenacious position, especially when there is a level of involvement or bias. If I believe that, for example, global warming criticism is pernicious and inherently disruptive and damaging to what society needs to do, urgently, and that, to boot, it is Not True, I may easily believe that IAR would require me to act to prevent this garbage from being put in articles, and blocking the editor might seem the most efficient action to me. Hence we require evidence of policy violations to justify blocks, long-term. Short term, in my opinion, an admin can do just about anything, provided the user affected is experienced, and that the community responds with a just decision quickly. We've lost a lot of admins and editors who retired because of some problematic IAR decision by another admin that wasn't promptly corrected. --Abd (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, this section is for discussion of the proposed principle. Your comment, particularly near the end, seems to focus more on past events in a rather accusatory tone (edit: with no apparent information to back up the claims) rather than the merits of the principle. Please remove it and focus more on the latter. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Hersfold removed a portion of the comment above me as "unfounded," fair enough. So....

A fundamental issue here is that WMC is very much an IAR administrator. That can be good and bad. Here's some of the down side that may have triggered the loss of an admin:

• [19] Abd notifies Hipocrite of this RfAr.
• [20] WMC reverted it.
• [21] Rootology reverted.
• [22] WMC reverted again.
• Discussion ensues on WMC Talk, 5 editors support WMC in his revert warring. Rlevse warns WMC, who argues with it.
• 21:12, 14 July 2009 Guettarda warns Rootology about use of rollback to "edit war." (The single revert above.)
• 21:38, 14 July 2009 Rootology responds.
• 23:50, 14 July 2009 Rootology begins deleting his Talk page with "that does it," and formally retires.

Dealing with a group of editors who mutually support each other in illegitimate actions can be seriously frustrating. Because other events took place in that two hours between Guettarda's wikilawyering objection (it was a single version revert, it doesn't matter what tool was used), we can't be certain that this was the cause, but the sequence almost certainly contributed. A pile-in of editors as happened on WMC Talk over this can make it seem that the whole place has gone insane. But these are all very familiar editors to those following this RfAr: WMC, Short Brigade Harvester Boris, Stephen Schulz, R. Baley, Mathsci. Guettarda is not so familiar to me, but in researching WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, there he was, standing with JzG, ScienceApologist, and WMC.

All this was mentioned because IAR is fine, but when editors apply IAR without regard for consensus, insisting on actions that the community would certainly reject, it becomes destructive. IAR works when an editor respects consensus. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice Abd's gracelessness and inability to retract: he ignored a direction instruction from the clerk, who was obliged to do Abd's work for him. @A: None of your diffs have anything to do with IAR. I don't think this has anything to do with Rootology's leaving, but if it has, the problem is R intervening unhelpfully where he wasn't wanted William M. Connolley (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• A useful restatement of policy, "Thou shalt not wikilawyer". Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support with the clear understanding that the purpose of the policy descriptions is to accurately reflect actual community practices, which includes any exceptions or limitations that are written into them. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support in the strongest terms - all violating this does is wastes productive editors' time. Orderinchaos 16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Yes needed saying. I haven't a clue what all the noise is above, shouldn't it be moved to the talk page or just outright removed? It really doesn't appear to be about this proposal and is more like soapboxing Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Agree with restating this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Be bold, but be careful. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Response to WMC - "the problem is R intervening unhelpfully where he wasn't wanted" That's sort of a funny statement for you to make under the circumstances. Might there be someone else to which the same statement could be applied? I think yes. --GoRight (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well yes, obviously: your comments here. As per the motions above. If you had someone else in mind, could you be more explicit? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Heh, cute. As you are well aware, though, I was not part of the edit warring where you seemed to be inexplicably interested in protecting Hipocrite from scrutiny in these proceedings. "could you be more explicit?" - Perhaps a brief look in a mirror would clear things up for you? --GoRight (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Some need reminding. Verbal chat 17:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support With the caveat that IAR isn't carte blanche. When particular parts of policies do get in the way, IAR should certainly be invoked but also needs the review and improvement of said policy area to prevent the need for IAR to be applied in the future. Minkythecat (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a discussion forum

2) The purpose of wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedia. It is not a discussion forum. Editors are expected to edit wiki with the primary intention of improving the encyclopaedia rather than indulging in endless talk and focus their discussion on specific proposed edits to a wikipedia article, rather than on the topic itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Abd's primary purpose on wiki is debate William M. Connolley (talk) 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Modified to at least partially address O's suggestion an GR's comment William M. Connolley (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note: Wikipedia:Not here to build an encyclopedia also refers William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. Abd says that he needs to make those long comments to learn about the topic, but there are plenty off-wiki forums where he can discuss about the topic at length without filling the talk pages here. I notice that he already participates at the VORTEX-L mailing list, which is dedicated to CF and is the mailing list for CF researchers and interested people, so why does he need to post also here. And then he says that people don't need to read his comments, I kid you not....... why does he even need to write them here in the first place...... --Enric Naval (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Support I was thinking about a proposal like this, but WMC beat me to it. However, this might be a better version of the second sentence: "Editors are expected to focus their discussion on specific proposed edits to a wikipedia article, rather than on the topic itself." Olorinish (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support WMC's comment above about Abd seems to be the case and is confirmed by Abd's editing record. Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "Not a social networking site" might put it more generally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Support Changing to Support - I certainly agree with the first two sentences. I would much prefer Olorinish's rewording of the last which seems to be more to the main point and less pointed at others. If such a change were made I would change to full support. --GoRight (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Acceptable. --GoRight (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and specifically: Wikipedia is not... discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Raul654 (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support as modified. Orderinchaos 16:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with the comments of User:Stephan Schulz & User:Olorinish--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, editors need to be able to be bold, and others need to be able to undo the bold edits without discussion, and discussion does not need to be started for every edit or undo. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Shouldn't need to be stated, but apparently it does. Verbal chat 17:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support with the new wording. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support This should be self-evident. Shell ^babelfish 23:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weakly support There is nothing wrong with debate. There's nothing wrong with conflict either - both can help improve wiki articles IF handled well. The problem occurs when the main reason for being on wiki appears to focus upon endless debate. Debating process and policy, as I've said elsewhere, can give net benefits to the project - there's a time and a place for that, using AN/I and Arbcom complaints is however the wrong place. Minkythecat (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:TINC

3) There really is no cabal. If a large group of well-respected editors all disagree with you, then this is generally because you are wrong.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Parties:

• Abd has made curious and ill-formed accusations of some vast shadowy cabal acting against him. This cabal does not exist. Instead, we are seeing the common situation of experienced editors recognising and trying to prevent disruption William M. Connolley (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC) [Update: it looks like Hersfold may be joining the "cabal" [23] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)]
• Strong support Abd regularly fails to see this. Personally, I think that's because he thinks that he is right, so anyone opposing him is either wrong or is misleading in purpose. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose.Well, by the definitions I used, there are cabals, many small ones and perhaps a few large ones. The "accusations" -- observations, really -- are pretty clear, but ArbComm will decide. Still, even if I were 100% wrong about this one, how could we state, as a fact, that there is no cabal? What I've shown, what is visible to anyone who reviews the evidence, is that there is a group of editors who regularly take certain extreme positions related to fringe science. It's not personal, and I saw this before they were "disagreeing with me." It's not truly a large group, considering how many editors there are, what makes it possible to identify the cabal is that the same names keep showing up over and over, across many articles, and, when there are disputes involving those articles, these editors will pile in, and cabal positions are clear and quite different from the consensus of uninvolved editors. And we can see that here, but I saw it first and most strikingly in RfC/GoRight, see User:Abd/Cabal and follow the links to that RfC and the evidence pages I created, when I was completely uninvolved, and had no previous contact with any of those editors, nor with the articles. That work by a completely uninvolved editor is fairly unusual, most people have to be involved to motivate themselves to do it. It just happened.

• Woonpton What you propose as proof that there is no cabal is merely a proof that, if there is one, it isn't well-organized, if it's organized at all. I see no sign of a seriously organized cabal; I see some signs of small-scale off-wiki coordination, but I'd be astonished if it included you! I've considered calling it the Keystone Cops Cabal, because it is, in fact, bumbling and often at cross purposes, it's not a disciplined Secret Society. (If it were, allowing things to come to the point of this RfAr would be extraordinarily dumb.) It's just a constellation of editors with a strong POV that naturally cooperates. You have that POV, you had it before you knew about me, AFAIK, that's what your contributions show. But we see the operation of the cabal most clearly when there is a discussion that attracts many neutral editors as well as cabal members, usually because the cabal piles in and then others show up later. (If a discussion has snowed the other way, I haven't ever seen the cabal pile in to reverse it. The cabal seems to only function when it believes it's in the majority, that it would be minority is contradictory to the cabal world-view.) The difference in opinions can be like day and night. That's what shows in RfC/GoRight. And it shows here. There are almost no neutral editors who have commented. There is the major cabal, as defined in the document, based on many past discussions, beginning before I was involved, myself and a couple of supporters, and there is MastCell, very few others. (Some of the others have been marginally identified with the cabal in some way or other, but, remarkably, there is, with these marginal editors, a visible softening of view. It would be worthwhile, at some point, to do a more extensive study, across many more discussions.) I know of no cabal arbitrators that I would even suspect. Raul654 was an arbitrator at one time. Somehow, Wikipedia survived, though I was told at one point that as long as he was on ArbComm, change would not be possible.
• Beetstra You are not a cabal administrator, the only alignment that you have with the cabal is that you sometimes disagree with me, but your disagreement is personal, not group-think, transient, and you end up doing the right thing. Always. So far. Your opinion about who is on the side of policies and guidelines is just that: your opinion. ArbComm did not support you on the use of the spam blacklist, the only disagreement we have really had -- except for your rather rude support for my being banned in RfC/JzG 3 -- what were you thinking of? -- you struggled hard to keep them from deciding what they decided in RfAr/Abd and JzG on that. But the sky did not fall, did it? (That support for my ban got you on that first list I put up, starting to discuss the cabal, but those lists explicitly stated that these were just incidents, anecdotes if you will, and that it would be overall pattern that would matter.) --Abd (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Support. Abd and I disagree quite often, though we have had very constructive discussions. Still, the disagreements with Abd result from my agreement with the policies and guidelines, not due to the existence of the cabal. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply to response from Abd "Beetstra You are not a cabal administrator...". So you say that there is a Cabal (IMHO ... then there may be even be more than one Cabal) of people against you, ánd other, individuals who disagree with you. Heh. Still, I do NOT believe that they are conspiring against you or against Cold fusion, they still are separate individuals, who share the same thinking. I have not expressed myself strongly on Cold fusion, so that is probably why I am not included in that list. Rubbish, Abd, there is no cabal.
  • And now the rest. What is that doing there? It has, as usual with your ramblings, nothing to do with this case. What are you trying to say me there? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is something that ArbCom can usefully state. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - pending further evidence, as I assume Abd has more to say on this. At the moment there's nothing in the evidence to show anything more than a group of like-minded editors. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Bilby, there is more evidence, perhaps, than you've seen, but the cabal is just that: a group of like-minded editors who cooperate in a manner that frustrates the application of RfAr/Fringe science. It isn't anything more than that, except that some cabal members have admin privileges and aren't shy to use them serving their "like mind," even when it's contrary to policy. --Abd (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support yeah, I wouldn't join any cabal that would have me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment As far as I know, there's no cabal, and I would be very surprised if Abd's evidence, if it ever materializes, proves the existence of a cabal. But even if I turn out to be right about this, I have trouble with the wording of the second sentence. I watch some fringe science topics where most of the editors are fringe theory advocates and there aren't many science-literate or policy-minded editors around, and when one of the latter does appear, the hapless intruder is often shouted down and driven away. (The very fact that the "cabal" doesn't rush to the aid of science-literate editors in these backwater fringe topics is more indication that there's no cabal). I don't think it's a good idea to suggest in general that whenever a lot of people disagree with you, that means you're wrong; that's only true if the people disagreeing with you are upholding policy instead of trying to subvert it. In other words, who is working to maintain the quality of content by working to uphold content policies, and who is working to undermine content policy, is more important than how many people are in each group in any particular dispute. I understand the reason for the proposal, but I think the second sentence is maybe not well thought, and the first sentence should follow from examination of evidence which has yet to appear.Woonpton (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I said "well-respectd" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know where the claims of the cabal is going but I don't think there are any. There are many Cliques on Wikipedia but that is to be expected. Many people become good online friends and usually they do because of the same interest and ideals. No, there is no cabals. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• How should I put this? Let's just say that the people who believe that There Is A Cabal are unlikely to be converted by an ArbCom pronouncement that there is none. So I don't see the utility. It might be well to propose, instead, that one shouldn't rattle on about a cabal in an ArbCom case if one is unwilling or unable to produce evidence of said cabal. But that ought to be common sense. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. Thanks, MastCell. It stands out. A sensible comment; in a case like this, it's practically proof that you aren't a member of the cabal. You aren't a member of my mini-cabal either. (It's hardly a cabal, the three of us here: myself, GoRight, Coppertwig, we are like-minded editors in certain ways but not as to POV, more as to what's fair on-wiki. And I'm not aware that we are opposing ArbComm or policy, but, then again, the cabal thinks it isn't either. We also have no block buttons and we don't push for editors to be blocked. You are absolutely right, declarations that There Is No Cabal, even if there were no cabal, would just raise suspicions. After all, how could you know that there is no cabal? What could be said is "there is no evidence of a cabal here." If that were the case! It isn't. What's happening here is that the term "cabal" is being constantly pushed to mean something silly and extreme, and, if there is a conscious motive behind this, it would be to distract from what's really happening: a group of editors who cooperate in pushing an extreme position not supported by ArbComm and the community at large. Because the action is harmful, because the wikiview is negative (the cabal's world is full of POV-pushers and trolls, enemies to be banished), because of a number of administrators involved, the word cabal is appropriate, even essential. --Abd (talk) 09:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The cabal exists only in Abd's head. It consists of all of the editors who oppose his disruptive behavior - which is pretty much everyone who interacts with him for more than 5 minutes. Raul654 (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with MastCell, Raul654 and others. I have no idea why Abd expects his capricious claims about good faith editors who do little common editing to be taken seriously. A large proportion of his evidence is devoted to what he calls a "cabal". It seems entirely unsupported and as such is a waste of ArbCom's time. Hopefully measures can be taken so that this behaviour will not recur. Mathsci (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, "little common editing?" Cabal membership was estimated by looking at common editing, especially certain RfAr cases and other process where fringe science or editorial behavior around fringe science, was being considered. The first clue for me was more than a year ago with RfAr/GoRight were I saw that what one might have assumed were uninvolved editors were actually editors who had edit warred with GoRight, tag-teaming. These editors all edited the same articles. You weren't a part of that, but you did show up in quite enough common page edits, pushing the cabal position, that you qualified. It was necessary to confront the cabal because of the pile-in here, as well as elsewhere. I didn't invent the term, I first saw it used off-wiki, major media source, I think, referring to ... WMC. In any case, the level of common editing is such that if any of these accounts turn out to be alternate accounts, i.e., socks, they'd be guilty of disruptive sock puppetry and blocked. I see sock suspicion raised all the time by less common editing. (The cabal is not a sock farm, those are actually opposites. A cabal is many acting as one (for a reprehensible purpose), a sock farm is one appearing to be many.) Really want to know why you were considered a cabal member? Ask yourself how you came to be so interested in this Abd editor, such that you followed him around. Were you ever interested in the spam whitelist before (you argued tendentiously against what Beetstra ultimately accepted)? All of a sudden you just happened to have very strong opinions against everything that Abd was doing? Do you think that and RfC/JzG 3 and the ensuing RfAr were unconnected? Why, in the RfC and RfAr, were you supporting an administrator who had clearly violated recusal policy, and attacking and seeking to have banned an editor who merely pointed this out, civilly? It was open and shut! If not for JzG's massive prior service, he'd have been desysopped, that's quite clear. You have been arguing and struggling against policy, but you think I'm disruptive. Typical. That's a cabal trait! --Abd (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This kind of comment should probably be removed to the discussion page by the clerk or Abd himself. It makes no sense at all to me - it seems to be some kind of rant. Anyway, back to Handel House Museum in namespace. Mathsci (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The first sentence appears to be an alleged fact requiring evidence to support it, not a principle. Re second sentence: It does sometimes happen that only one person holds a given opinion but eventually convinces the whole group. Decisions are made based on good reasons, not by counting votes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Surprised I wasn't on the list! Verbal chat 17:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, Verbal, you are on the list. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence#There_is_a_cabal. Nobody has actually argued against the cabal evidence, they have merely declared the whole thing preposterous. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Heh, sometimes you are a good laugh, Abd. Let me guess, what do you want to see .. eh .. emails that have not been sent to non-existent cabal members, empty IRC logs of conversations between an editor and his non-existent cabal member, non existent blogspot pages with comments from one cabal member to another, or wait, twitter feeds (seems in at the moment). How are you going to provide an argument when there is no evidence possible against something that does not exist. Maybe Abd, that is the ultimate proof that the cabal only exists in your mind. If I see a cabal, I will tell you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not quite sure about the wording; clearly, seeing cabals and involved editors anytime someone disagrees with you is problematic and Abd has taken this to an extreme. Would support if this focused more on just the second sentence, which I believe gets to the heart of this issue. Shell ^babelfish 23:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Weakly support In any community, online or not, people with similar views will always group together. It's human nature. Some seeing people with a like minded view attacked, well, not difficult to predict any reactions. Does this necessarily make it a cabal, a word often bandied about? Not necessarily. In this particular case, Abd seems to have throw the concept of "cabal" out whilst simultaneously using a vague definition, to the extent that it could be read he's implying the traditional "evil cabal" view without saying it. I'd like Arbcom to make some statement on this issue, along the lines that whilst like minded people will tend to be supportive, where it becomes organised and disruptive there is a problem. It's no use burying your head in the sand over that. Minkythecat (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many people, Minky, who have claimed that there is a cabal. What is it that they are seeing? Is it pure fantasy, or is there a "constellation" of editors who move together in ways that can frustrate policy and ArbComm decisions? I disagree that a "cabal" must be organized to be harmful. Tag-team reversion need not be organized. The effect can be just as damaging as if it were organized; indeed, my claim is that an organized cabal might actually be less dangerous, because you could negotiate with it. An organized cabal would never have allowed this case to rise to ArbComm, far too risky. --Abd (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question it is frowned upon and mocked to say an editor is in a cabal, but it is acceptable to claim editors are "mutual trolling" and in "small tag teams" as former Arbcom Raul and editor Mat have said? Does anyone else see the irony in this?
  To nail home this double standard, I will use the almost exact words of these two editors above:
  Raul654: The mutual trolling exists only in Raul654's head. It consists of all of the editors who oppose his disruptive behavior - which is pretty much everyone who interacts with him for more than 5 minutes.
  Mathsci: I have no idea why Mathsci expects his capricious claims of "small tag teams" about good faith editors who do little common editing to be taken seriously. A large proportion of his evidence is devoted to what he calls a "small tag teams". It seems entirely unsupported and as such is a waste of ArbCom's time. Hopefully measures can be taken so that this behaviour will not recur.Ikip (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Abd in violation of previous arbcomm remedies

1) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, Abd was advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution. He has failed to follow that advice.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The failure to be clear and succint is all too obious, as is the failure to heed good-faith feedback William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support I also think that this is a huge understatement. From all the warnings received along time, this seems just the continuation of a longtime trend. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, of course, because I have fully attempted to follow the advice, which had another aspect as well, to escalate sooner, when it became apparent that the earlier stages of WP:DR were not going to be successful. Like many remedies, some of the exact meaning of this was unclear, but "heed good-faith feedback" cannot mean "obey" it, it means to satisfy it to the extent possible without compromising the project. WMC and Enric are confusing being "clear and succinct" in general discussion with what ArbComm was describing, the documentation of a dispute, which I did, clearly and succinctly, with the filing of this case. If not, ArbComm will tell me so, I'll assume. It got a lot more complicated with the pile-on from the cabal; I could have chosen to ignore that, and I don't know to what extent ArbComm will address cabal issues in this case (it only needs, perhaps, to consider the cabal in considering the weight of the evidence presented, to be a bit more careful than it might otherwise be); the primary case I filed is very simple: alleged admin recusal failure. If it were a false claim, then my disruption would become an issue. Notice that I could have been disruptive, WMC could have been "right" to ban me, every charge here against me could be true, and WMC could have violated recusal policy, in a damaging manner. There has been no disruption from uninvolved Heimstern's close determining the one-month ban, only from WMC's refusal to let go. If he'd recused at that point, by which time all reasonable argument that he wasn't involved had flown out the window, because if he wasn't involved before, he was now, and if any further action had been taken by an uninvolved administrator (there are only a handful of involved admins in the cabal), I'd not be here arguing this case. Usually, an editor stirring up as much fuss as has been stirred up would be, practically on the face of it, considered disruptive, but that's only a decent assumption if the editors are uninvolved. That's why WP:BAN requires a consensus of uninvolved editors for a community ban. Thanks, Jehochman, that snippet of text has been invaluable. A set of involved editors may make a huge fuss against an editor it opposes, and ArbComm may need to decide if and how to sanction carefully. --Abd (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He has failed to follow that advice - if anything, a bit of an understatement. Raul654 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Seems to follow his own rules. Mathsci (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Abd has heeded feedback by bringing this case to Arbcom relatively quickly; by posting many concise comments, at considerable expense in terms of his time and effort given his condition; by agreeing to abide by the original administrative page-ban even while he disagreed with it, and accepting the community page-ban, etc. His opening statement in this case links to clear, well-organized summaries in point form of the history of the dispute and current state of the dispute as asked for in the remedy cited above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the other issues in this case, I think this one is pretty much unarguable. Basically, any critical feedback has been attributed to the existence of a cabal, whose members appear to linked primarily by the fact that they've provided critical feedback to Abd. The quality of evidence Abd has presented has fallen well short of what one might hope, given the obviously (and intentionally) inflammatory nature of the wording he's chosen. I don't see how this is "heeding good-faith feedback" or effectively using dispute resolution - quite the opposite, and the previous admonishment seems a reasonable starting point here. MastCell ^Talk 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Not only has he failed to follow that advice, he goes so far as to state ArbComm...roundly ignored the complaints about me.[24] The impression one gets is that nuanced and tactfully worded admonishments just don't get through to him, and the only way for Arbcom to get his attention is to whack him over the head. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject - Per Coppertwig. --GoRight (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support. I tried to talk and listen to Abd. Now I am a member of the large cabal because of what, I thought that Abd needed time away from the Cold fusion article for awhile, I spoke up at the finge case and I commented here. Oh my that does make me a vast conspirator of some sort, not! I'm sorry for my sarcasm, but this cabal claims had me weary but i didn't expect to be named in this conspiracy since I have minimal contacts with most of the accused 'cabalist' and I never touched the Cold fusion article or talk page before. I am having a hard time not believing that these claims of cabals should be removed as a violations of WP:Civil and WP:NPA. Would someone please answer this for me, why is this attack allowed never mind being allowed to be expanded upon? Anyways, I stand behind my contributions here to the project. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd is being allowed to make assertions that there is a cabal because he has provided evidence to that effect on the evidence page. Whether or not the evidence supports those assertions is up to the Arbitrators. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hersfold, I'm just frustrated with this because I take it as an insult. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if I were not part of the "cabal" that you're upset about being lumped in with, I would still think you're in good company. :) Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I am actually. Looking into the editors that I've had no contact with before I am very impressed with the history. All I do mainly is vandal patrol. Good company indeed. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, if all you did was vandal patrol, you wouldn't be here, and I would not have found your previous comments in RfAr or other discussions. And if you consider what you can easily see here of the editors called "cabal," and you find this acceptable behavior, you have thereby fully confirmed that it's legitimate to name you as a cabal editor. If you consider this "good company," that's fine, and there is not, and will not be, an attempt to ban the cabal from doing good work, though it might get more difficult for them to ban editors, a non-vandal-patrol project that you've participated in. I'm not your judge, I just present what I find and see and understand. ArbComm will decide if you are even mentioned. You aren't an administrator, and ArbComm is going to be much more concerned about administrative actions that may have been colored by factional affiliation. If you don't revert war, and are careful about even single reverts in conjunction with other cabal members (except if fighting true vandalism) and if you are more careful about condemning other editors in the future, I don't see how being called a member of this cabal could harm you in the future. The cabal position was once more common, but those editors largely retired as it became clear that they were opposing consensus and their "work" became more difficult. --Abd (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

@CG - I wouldn't take it as an insult because if you read what Abd has actually stated on the matter he clearly does not mean it as a pejorative. It is simply a reasoned result based on objective evidence and nothing more. He makes no accusation of nefarious intent or action that I can see, indeed he seems to go out of his way to discount such interpretations. Contrast that with the proposals of certain other participants which baldly refer to both Abd and myself as "trolls" without any such disclaimers. Should I be any less insulted by that than you seem to be about being lumped in with some "virtual cabal"? Had I been Abd I might have chosen WP:TAGTEAM (not that I take a position on you specifically either way) rather than the term "Cabal", but that's a matter of personal style. --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's actually the least convincing, most tortured, and most transparent of Abd's arguments. He intentionally chose the word "cabal" with a mind to its connotations - he's said as much - and bragged offsite about having the balls to drop the C-bomb. So the idea that he's used it as a "reasoned result based on objective evidence" rings a bit hollow, as does Abd's claim that he means to imply no bad faith. Abd, like anyone with a basic understanding of English, knows that the word "cabal" is a pejorative implying bad faith and nefarious intent. I wish people would be a bit less prodigal with the word "troll" - I definitely wouldn't apply that term to you or to Abd - but the fact that you've been called names doesn't make this nonsense about a "good-faith" cabal anything other than nonsense. And please don't get me started on WP:TAGTEAM... :) MastCell ^Talk 05:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't use tag team because most cabal activity here hasn't been tag team activity, it's been creating participation bias in various processes. Cold fusion isn't central to the cabal agenda, it's a bit of a backwater for it; but cabal editors did show up there from time to time. Enric is pretty much a Cold fusion specialist, far more than other cabal editors; recent cabal interest in Cold fusion destabilized it; that attention was attracted by RfC/JzG 3 and the RfAr. Cabal is a group perjorative, though some of the admins frequently joke about the cabal. But I've been very careful to specify that the negative character of the cabal isn't bad faith. I'm confident that all the cabal editors believe that they are working for the welfare of the project. I'm not aware of any COI, for example. "Nefarious intent?" Well, to ban an editor for their POV is nefarious. To create an entire category of editors and claim, with some success, that these editors should be banned, "Civil POV-pushers," is nefarious. The cabal pushes its POV, often uncivilly, but it claims that it's POV is NPOV. So it is uncivilly pushing NPOV. Note that Woonpton identified the problem with Wikipedia as being concern over civility instead of NPOV and RS. (See User:Abd/Cabal#Woonpton). The problem with that, MastCell, is that incivility poisons our consensus process, which contaminates and impedes the mechanism by which we determine what is NPOV. NPOV isn't an absolute, it's relative, one text is more NPOV than another, and the only way to measure it, for community purposes, is degree of consensus found. We have our own opinions about NPOV, but they are unreliable, because we all have POVs and the skill of being able to truly see beyond our own POV is rare and uneven. One thing is completely clear: if all editors agree on a text, we may safely assume it's neutral. Call that 100% NPOV. 100% is not necessarily attainable, but it would be desirable, if possible. The alternative to this is raw power, and that's what the cabal attempts. If not for administrative members, it would have much less power, there are too few of them. If admin tools are needed to "enforce NPOV," as distinct from behavioral policy, it's almost certainly not NPOV, it's merely a position held by the editors with the tools, who imagine that they know better than everyone else. --Abd (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well we can certainly quibble about his choice of terms but clearly the way in which he has scoped them and the manner in which the lists of names were derived is certainly consistent with it being a "reasoned result based on objective evidence". Or do you disagree with that?

"And please don't get me started on WP:TAGTEAM... :)" - I believe that I correctly discern your none too subtle meaning here but I also suspect that there are many here who would prefer that we NOT undertake a thorough discussion of WP:TAGTEAM and its implications in this case ... and most of them would NOT be from the "side" that you had presumably intended.  :) --GoRight (talk) 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support Abd consistently misrepresents and ignores previous arbcom findings with which he is at odds. Verbal chat 17:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I was surprised to see ArbCom take this case instead of referring it to AE. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious Abd has convinced himself over time that the last proceedings sided with him and found him faultless. He has continued these same behaviors and disrupted multiple areas of the encyclopedia, usually those which are already highly contentious. Acerbating already difficult disputes is precisely what the original case was trying to prevent; it didn't take. Shell ^babelfish 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support it's pretty clear some of Abd's action have come across as pointy - the edits on cold fusion talk to give the obvious example. The fact Arbcom action was threatened a while ago indicates to me this was viewed as an arena to air grandiose views on policy rather than address the issues. I've no doubt Abd could be a net benefit to the encyclopedia if he focused on articles rather than seemingly spoiling for fights. Minkythecat (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

State of the Cold Fusion article

2) Before WMC stepped in to page-ban A and H, the Cold Fusion page had degenerated to a state of semi-permanent protection and the talk page had become an unintelligible morass of competing polls and walls of text. Afterwards, protection was removed and normal editing resumed; the talk page became a peaceful venue for useful discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is what happened William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Note that GR appears to offer at least qualified support for this view [25] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with description. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no edit warring at Cold fusion until Hipocrite arrived at the beginning of May, fresh from, already, trying to get me banned. He simply continued that activity, he didn't care about Cold fusion. This RfAr isn't about Hipocrite, as such, but all the edit warring involved him, I was only involved with reversion in the first incident, May 21, though if you look at the revert history, you'll see many reverts preceding May 21, generally bald reverts. I didn't revert back, but continued to discuss. May 21, I confronted this, and did make a couple of reverts. The definition of revert on the relevant pages is a little unclear; for sure, when "revert" is defined, it's about rejection of content without attempt to find compromise, not about edits that alter content to attempt to satisfy objections. If we set aside those edits, I think I hit 1RR or -- maybe? -- 2RR. If we include edits that restore any reverted content from the same day, it would be 3RR, same as Hipocrite, and if we include the initial edit that restored content after discussion, with sourcing improvements, it would be 4RR. Protection on May 21 was appropriate, and I thanked WMC for it. On Jun 1, in fact, because the complainant at RfPP was the primary edit warrior creating the edit war that he complained about, and because he clearly gamed RfPP (acknowledged later by an RfPP admin), he should have been blocked for edit warring, no question. That second protection was for two weeks, which was excessive, given that there was only one persistent edit warrior, but it was lifted by WMC after the topic ban. It could have been lifted sooner, because I'd agreed to a voluntary indef article page ban with Hipocrite, all WMC or any interested admin would have need to do would have been to confirm the already accepted ban. (Hipocrite jumped at the offer; his goal was to get me banned! Mine was consensus, and I don't need to edit the article to facilitate consensus, it's practically a detail.) Since quick unprotection would undo the gamed version -- I wouldn't have to be the one to do it, it was blatantly POV, not even Hipocrite supported that version -- I could certainly give up editing the article for a time. A total of two weeks of protection resulting from a single editor is hardly "semi-permanent protection." This is a thoroughly biased claim. Definitely, if you ban, including from Talk, as has happened, the most knowledgeable editors on one side of a topic (Pcarbonn first, very long-term experience with the article, civil, followed guidelines, etc., then me), an article is going to become "peaceful." The goal of the project is not peaceful talk pages, it is improved text, and with controversial topics, that certainly takes a lot of discussion, including disputes. Or edit warring. The edit war of May 21 didn't involve much Talk, but it improved the text, because Hipocrite, approaching 3RR, realized he'd have to do some actual work, to balance what he was asserting as Fringe POV, but reliably sourced, with opposing material that was also reliably sourced. I certainly accepted that. Likewise the edit war of June 1 would have resulted in improvements, if Hipocrite had simply been blocked for what he had clearly done: sustained revert warring using bald reverts with no effort to reach compromise (except that one balancing act when he was forced), but proving that will take time. Even experienced editors use a level of reverting on occasion, it's why we have WP:IAR. Normally, I'm reluctant to do even a single bald revert. I much more frequently will make a new edit with compromised text, which some seem to consider a revert, when this is a wiki, and that can be a very efficient method of negotiating improvements. It's ironic that I'm condemned for too much discussion, but when I actually act in the most efficient way to improve the article, that's when I'm banned. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I agree that this is basically what happened, and I've tried to provide more evidence portraying the degree of chaos at the page in my evidence section. For a quantitative idea of the difference, the talk page had approximately 175 edits in the three days before the bans (81 from Abd and 16 from Hippocrite by my rough count), almost all related to polls. In the three days after the bans, there were around 35 edits, mostly related to discussing specific improvements to the article. I counted these off the screen so could be off by one or two here or there.Woonpton (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a one-sided interpretation. Obviously banning several editors on one side of a dispute will lead to an article that seems improved in the eyes of those on the other side of the dispute. The goal of Wikipedia is NPOV articles, not quiet talk pages. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ermh... There were two editors banned, one on each "side" if you insist on having this about "sides. It seems indisputable that the environment there improved dramatically after the bans, and that productive discussion, which had been impossible for some time on the talk page, had resumed. Since the FOF makes no claims about the quality of the article, and simply refers to the objective reality that after the bans, protection was lifted and normal editing resumed, and since no one in this section so far as I can see, has made any claims about the quality of the article pre or post bans, it seems rather a non sequitur to say This is a one-sided interpretation. Obviously banning several editors on one side of a dispute will lead to an article that seems improved in the eyes of those on the other side of the dispute. Woonpton (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"the environment there improved dramatically after the bans" - This depends on what you want to consider the "environment" to encompass. I shall dispute your indisputable truth from the following perspective, the "environment" has lost an important voice in the discussion ... and not just any voice but one that consistently seeks consensus and a WP:NPOV article which includes all significant points of view. --GoRight (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: when I said "banning several editors on one side of a dispute" I meant page-banned Pcarbonn, arguably-banned Jed Rothwell, and (formerly, perhaps) page-banned Abd. We need to be careful not to ban people for their POV, especially when several people with similar POVs are banned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose "degenerated to a state of semi-permanent protection and the talk page had become an unintelligible morass of competing polls and walls of text" - This might be true in the period of time covered by the two edit warring instances, but in general I disagree. Prior to that Abd had been working with others on the page and together they had agreed to certain improvements to the page. If any "degeneration" occurred I would argue that it was mostly instigated by the actions of Hipocrite. He certainly arrived at the page with his "guns ablazin", dead set on reverting material that had already been agreed to by the editors closely involved with the topic. This was clearly disruptive to the status quo that had been achieved through deliberation and consensus building of which Abd was a part.

I have no way to know (and hence I am making no specific allegations here) if Hipocrite's actions were part of a deliberate plan to draw Abd into an edit war and thus create a rationale for action against him, or merely an example of over-heated and rash judgment on his part. The fact that Hipocrite came into the situation the way that he did when he had shown no interest in the article for at least a month prior should cause any critical thinker to pause and go hmmmm. Couple that with (a) his immediate and unconditional acceptance of the ban (i.e. I decided then I didn't care enough to argue about it, and I still don't) which is in direct contrast to the apparent passion he had shown in the run up to it by immediately engaging in full on edit warring with multiple editors to the point of requiring page protection not once but twice, (b) his statement at ANI that he would gladly accept the ban if it kept Abd off the page (i.e. I am happy to remain banned from Cold Fusion as long as it gets Abd out of the hair of the editors, (c) his plea to WMC a short while later to have his ban lifted to otherwise reduced, and (d) WMC's quick acceptance thereof and this all just appears a little too "convenient" for my tastes. Was it a mere coincidence that this all left Abd as the only one banned from the page (as WMC still asserts), or was it the result of a more deliberate plan? And a plan that included whom? We will never know.

Is it likewise a mere coincidence that Hipocrite has "conveniently" left the project for the duration of these proceedings and that WMC was edit warring to keep him off of the list of parties, or was that all part of a "plan"? And again, a plan by whom? Hmmm. It does make one think. I suspect that Hipocrite may, as is often the case, come out of his self imposed retirement at some point. Will it be just another in a long line of coincidences should that happen shortly after the close of these proceedings? It shall be interesting to see. Only time will tell. --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Support The talk page of cold fusion did seem to be chaotic. Abd seemed to be acting as if he WP:OWNed it. The statements by Coppertwig and GoRight reflect their adherence to Abd's fringe POV. There might be some parallels between these three and User:Jagz, User:Elonka and User:Zero g (the controversial fringe science articles in that case were centred on eugenics and race and intelligence). Mathsci (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Definite correlation between WMC's intervention and the quality of the editing environment. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Connolley, silencing different opinions, as you have dozens of times by abusing your administrative tools, is not an ideal way to make peace. For example, there is the Mathsci block. There are so many examples of your persistent abuse of power, but lets take briefly talk about one example here. On 26 June 2009 you indefinetly blocked User:Lauof Pinch, who had eight minor edits, who dared to edit your page, Global cooling, with the explanation of "someone pointless sock; e.g. Global cooling" It was obvious that Connolley didn't know who the editor was, "someones pointless sock" yet he indefinetly banned him. Ikip (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Ikip's reasoning. Dream Focus 05:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Stephan Schulz

Proposed principles

Expert opinion is essential

1) Many topics covered on Wikipedia are so complex that expert knowledge is necessary to properly understand and contextualize them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• support William M. Connolley (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. However, just as with the expertise that is essential to good medical care, the final decisions should be in the hands, not of experts, but of ordinary editors, the "patients." Expertise should be solicited, welcome, and respected, but it should not dominate or control. Generally, true experts may be COI on the issues. I do not believe that experts should be excluded from writing articles -- at all -- but where controversy appears, experts should refrain from incivility and from edit warring to maintain preferred content, but patiently explain the issues to the community. The consensus that we should seek with all articles obviously should include the consent of experts as to the accuracy of the articles and their freedom from the kinds of misinterpretations that non-experts may easily fall prey to. Experts, as well, who have extensive knowledge of fringe fields, should be similarly welcome in discussion and be a part of the consensus we seek. By the way, Cold fusion is an interdisciplinary field, that's one reason why it's such a problem article. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Agree. I have found this problem both in science-related and in history-related articles. We needed the help of experts to untangle certain points in the articles, and to counter some POV pushers that misrepresented sources in ways that a non-expert could not notice without a lot of investigative work in that field. Also, assesing which sources are really important and which ones aren't, and knowing where to search for sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. This is particularly true of interdisciplinary topics in science. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• I think this is undeniably true, but it's dramatically at odds with the project's prevailing ethos and self-image, where real-world expertise is treated as an unnecessary luxury - nice if it happens to be available, but hardly essential. Real-world expertise has never saved an editor from being drowned out, blocked, or banned if they can't figure out The System. I'm hopeful that as the project has grown, the old attitudes toward expertise are evolving (case in point). On the other hand, most of our articles - including our best work - continues to be written and maintained by enthusiastic and curious amateurs. I don't think we can resolve this fundamental tension in this ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• "essential" is incorrect. If that were true we would have no science articles at all, or at least significantly less. Change "essential" to "useful" or even "highly desirable" and perhaps I could by in. Having made that distinction clear, I otherwise agree with User:MastCell on the cultural aspects. --GoRight (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Cough - the reason why some of our scientific articles are so good if because of the involvement subject experts helping to write them. Driving them away with relentless drivel, rampant tinfoilhatism and never ending walls of text does little to ensure that the quality of articles in other areas improves. (not this is not specifically aimed at Abd but if the tinfoilhat fits as they say you are welcome to draw your own conclusions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My tinfoil hat always fits, it's designed that way. Experts, however, I've talked to many, are driven away by senseless article edits that undo their work, deletion of articles they create, and incivility, not talk page drivel, which any expert would reasonably expect from a non-expert community, and which an expert can scan and easily ignore, unless he or she is the unusual expert who feels that all errors must be corrected, such as, say, Mathsci appears to be; most experts who have regular public contact have learned that this would be an endless project, and only worthwhile when good results are expected. Experts, because they know a topic well, can also generate somenew v of those "walls of text," and part of the problem is Wikipedia standard page design, which anyone in publishing, as I was, can tell you "sucks," to use a technical term. Further, what Spartaz considers "drivel," an expert may consider cogent commentary, grist for the mill, relatively knowledgeable, for a non-expert -- or as the contribution of another expert. --Abd (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

earlier version of Abd reply to Spartaz

I don't think that experts are driven away by masses of ignorant commentary, or long commentary, on Talk pages, and that's irrelevant to most science articles anyway, long comments mostly arise when there is serious controversy. No, they are driven away because they discover that making an article right is pushing a boulder up the hill, and then it rolls down when some other editor "improves" it who doesn't know beans. Yet experts alone may sometimes be responsible for this; if the article were crystal clear in the first place, if it explained the subject very well, those harmful changes would be less likely, and general community support in maintaining the article more likely, since anyone reviewing the damage would be more likely to recognize it. I will be talking in New York about how we might improve this process and make it more reliable. Experts -- and many others -- are driven away by Wikipedia's incredible inefficiency, and it's essential we address that. It can be done without sacrificing the wiki principles. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Having Abd give a talk on expert retention and our treatment of science articles is sort of like having the fox give a lecture about hen house security. Raul654 (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Wouldn't you want to know the opinion of the fox? Besides, I don't eat hens, only roosters. Hens I love for the eggs. Allowing Raul654 unconstrained, independent, unrequested checkuser access to help prevent "POV-pushers" that he banned from editing articles owned by his cabal is like ....? Like appointing Josef Stalin as Commissioner of Elections? What? I'll tell you what it isn't, for sure. It's not confidence-inspiring, like much administrative activity connected with the cabal. --Abd (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• As usual, Abd is making wild accusations without a bit of evidence to back them up. (And if Abd has any, he should present it thusly. Otherwise his continued failure to present evidence shall be taken as an admission that his claims are meritless) Abd should have learned his lesson from a few months back when GoRight tried this tactic that and ended up looking like an idiot. Raul654 (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. It was a logical conclusion given where the original request was located. Well, that coupled with your legendary exploits in the pursuit of a sockmaster of your own creation and the borderline abuse of WP:CHECKUSER policy along the way. Still, when I noticed my error I corrected it. No shame in that. Sorry to disappoint. --GoRight (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• First, Scibaby choose to employ sockpuppets, and he did so prior to ever being checkusered. So your claim that I somehow created him is transparently false. Second, the checkuser policy which you cite (apparently without reading) says that checkusers may perform of their own voilition any check which is reasonably performed in order to address issues of disruption or damage to the project., which is most certianly the case where Scibaby is concerned. So, your claim of checkuser abuse, as with most of your statements about policy, is completely without merit. Third, given that you have on multiple occasions meatpuppetted for him, it's more than a little hypocritical for you to try to claim that I created him. You personally have had far more to do with his continuing disruption here than I do. Fourth, you claim that Still, when I noticed my error I corrected it. No shame in that. - that's a rather generous way of saying that you threw out false claims that I violated the checkuser policy despite the fact that I didn't even have internet access at the time the check was performed. So yes, your behavior leaves much to be ashamed of. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"So your claim that I somehow created him is transparently false." - Created not to be taken quite so literally. I mean "created" in the sense that your obsession with him/her only encourages them to continue because of the level of disruption you enable them to achieve with things like, umm, huge IP range blocks which keep legitimate editors and administrators from doing useful work, or even this wikidrama that is playing out here. Your actions are at the center of all that, not mine, which makes your claim that "You personally have had far more to do with his continuing disruption here than I do" rather laughable.

"any check which is reasonably performed" - The key word there is reasonably. I question whether it is reasonable for you to be checkusering any new user who edits a GW related page that expresses a skeptical POV, especially in light of your obvious intention to block anyone that even sounds like a skeptic by labeling them a meatpuppet of Scibaby. He has become your not so secret weapon against those who you disagree with on content issues. Which of course brings us to a number of points from the check user policy that you "conveniently" forgot to mention here:

• The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet activity, to limit disruption or potential disruption of any Wikimedia project, and to investigate legitimate concerns of bad faith editing. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute.
• "Fishing" is broadly defined as performing a check on account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry. Performing checks without evidence is inappropriate.

Sorry, but your policy of checkusering any new accounts which make any type of comment skeptical of AGW is, IMHO, a borderline abuse of the privilege. The key word there being borderline, something you seem to have missed above.

"you threw out false claims that I violated the checkuser policy" - My concerns over your fishing expeditions are not limited to that one instance you point to. I can point to several other instances where I raised the same point and you WERE the one to make the pronouncement. So the fact that you weren't the one to respond to a post on YOUR talk page in this instance doesn't really change the validity of my point one iota, and I am hardly the only one who is critical of your practices with respect to your obsession with Scibaby. This is not new news.

"I didn't even have internet access" - Sorry, and this may come as a surprise to you, but I don't frequent your user page all that often so such a message is rather useless as a method of alerting me to your personal whereabouts. --GoRight (talk) 08:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I mean "created" in the sense that your obsession with him/her only encourages them to continue because of the level of disruption you enable them to achieve with things like, umm, huge IP range blocks which keep legitimate editors and administrators from doing useful work, or even this wikidrama that is playing out here. - this Wikidrama is playing out here because Scibaby is able to recruit like-minded editors who parrot his talking points and meatpuppet for him, such as Abd and you. As for encouraging him, the IP blocks were put in place to discourage him, and they provably work -- removing them substantially increased the number of edits he makes. So, as usual, you are demonstrably wrong.

I question whether it is reasonable for you to be checkusering any new user who edits a GW related page that expresses a skeptical POV, especially in light of your obvious intention to block anyone that even sounds like a skeptic by labeling them a meatpuppet of Scibaby. - first, as you have a history of meatpuppetry on behalf of this banned user, and since your comments about Wikipedia policy and happenings have time and again been far off the mark, I frankly do not care whether you think it is reasonable to check new editors on GW articles who make skeptical edits. The opinion of a scibaby meatpuppet is not something I give a whole lot of weight to. Second, your allegations of fishing (performing a check on account where there is no credible evidence to suspect sockpuppetry) is wrong because new editors editing global warming articles from skeptical POV is an extremely specific MO. And not only are you wrong, but you are quantifiably so -- the abuse filter has tripped only 300 times in 2 weeks of edits (so that's 300 out of hundreds of thousands of edits), and the abuse filter is looking at a broader set of behaviors than I am. Third, the use of checkuser against Scibaby has nothing to do with political control, and everything to do with the fact that he is a rampant sockpuppeteer.

So the fact that you weren't the one to respond to a post on YOUR talk page in this instance doesn't really change the validity of my point one iota - you're right -- the charge of fishing was just as invalid when you leveled it at me for one of Nishkid's checks as when you leveled it at me for my own checks. It's just that by doing it at me for one of Nishkid's checks, you have gone the extra mile to prove you have no idea what you are talking about and are just spouting off ignorantly.

Sorry, and this may come as a surprise to you, but I don't frequent your user page all that often so such a message is rather useless as a method of alerting me to your personal whereabouts. - see above, re: spouting off ignorantly. Raul654 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I shall let most of this go at this point since the primary points, and counter-points, have already been made. I do wish to follow-up on one point. You state "recruit like-minded editors who parrot his talking points and meatpuppet for him, such as Abd and you".

First, this statement just further illustrates that Raul objects not only to simple meat puppetry for Scibaby, which is obviously a justified position under policy, but he also objects to "like-minded editors who parrot his talking points" which is far more serious concern. This is Raul's way of saying that he objects to anyone that happens to have a view in common with something that Scibaby ever said. In other words, anyone who is skeptical of AGW. I have no doubt that he would prefer that all such editors simply be summarily blocked or banned for their POV. But of course this is NOT supported by policy which is why this is such an important concern.

Second, could you please indicate for us the percentage of Scibaby's thousands of edits that Abd and I combined have ever reverted? And of those, what percentage were done solely to act as a meat puppet for Scibaby as opposed to raising a legitimate point of debate related to improving the project? --GoRight (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support with caveat: This particular arbitration arose mostly because of Abd's efforts in the Cold fusion article. THAT subject isn't so complex as many others, simply because if CF is real, nobody yet knows for sure how it happens. Should it be real and become thoroughly understood, then at that time the article's complexity is likely to increase significantly. But until then, if it ever happens, the article can only be about what is known: Claims vs Counterclaims, and many experiments that were mostly conducted under the radar of the more prestigious journals. ALL here are likely qualified to edit the article at that level! I therefore submit that this section of this page is not particularly relevant to this Arbitration case. V (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• I supporta principle along this lines, though "essential" is be a bit too strong (and I feel it is stronger than the "...is necessary to properly understand and contextualize..."). We must realise that there are also dangers to 'using' experts (maybe too technical, maybe strong POV, may have things to gain, etc.), and that experts (very probably) can be substituted by a reasonable group of editors who know what they are talking about, though who are not necesserily experts (and as such, this is relevant to the CF case). Secondly, for some subjects there are no true experts yet, which also defeats 'essential'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Like you said, Beetstra. Experts almost always have a strong POV, and my claim is that we might much more routinely consider them COI: allowed to create articles when their work is not controversial (which covers a lot of the most useful work by experts), strictly required to avoid revert warring with other editors. Note that a COI editor can ask for admin or other help if an ignorant editor is damaging an article, and we should make this easy and reliably accessible, but there is a reverse problem: if an article is incomprehensible to editors, it will be incomprehensible to most readers, and verification will, in fact, be impossible. The best articles require cooperation between experts and ordinary editors willing to learn about the topic. If the expert, writing about it with sourced material, which should be readily available to experts, can't teach the ordinary editor with suggested edits in Talk (or BRD edits of the article), something is missing, and additional experts are needed. And if we give special deference to experts, then we have the credentials problem, as well as possible bias from what experts we trust over others. So my view is that anyone who claims to be an expert, should rigorously abstain from edit warring, and we should probably enforce that. Most experts do, in fact, have some kind of COI in their field of expertise, except for amateur experts, who often aren't credentialled.... We should be particularly reluctant to ban anyone who claims to be an expert, or about whom that is claimed, if they show that through knowledge of the sources and cogency as recognized by other experts, and they are restricted to Talk, and we should use other measures to deal with tendentious debate, if we want to retain experts, whose advice should be solicited and respected, which means carefully considered, not "slavishly followed," which isn't anything more than meat puppetry. I've done it, there was a young, enthusiastic editor who started revert warring with an apparent professor in the field. I sat them down on a user page I'd set up and negotiated them through real consensus process, and it worked with surprising ease. They ended up cooperating, and the project benefited, and, without that, we'd have had one or two blocked editors and maybe a banned one. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support the general principle . . .but there are cases where experts claim that their profession demands that they edit in ways which are antithetical to building a comprehensive encyclopedia (see Talk:Rorschach_test). I am also unsure about the word "essential". . . but in general it's much better to have experts who know what they're talking about than not. R. Baley (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. general idea of this per User:Beetstra and User:R. Baley --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Goes too far. Participation of experts is very helpful, but people who are not experts in a given subject can still read about it and verify whether a given fact appears in a reference or not. There are different degrees of expertness: someone who is an expert in one subject may still be quite good at reading and summarizing references in many subjects within a much broader field. Experts can still be biassed or make mistakes. We need the participation of many editors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with MastCell, and I also agree with Enric. Subject matter experts know the literature and can summarize the viewpoints in a neutral way, and can be valuable to the project. However, many of the people who claim expertise in a field aren't really experts in the sense of understanding and dispassionately summarizing the literature (eg the continued reference to Jed Rothwell as an "expert" in cold fusion). Being a promoter of a fringe theory doesn't really make one an expert for the purposes of writing an encyclopedia. But there are a lot of idiots with PhDs, and as MastCell rightly said, many very good articles have been written by enthusiastic amateurs.

When I first came to the project, consequent to being appalled at the content quality of Wikipedia articles I'd seen, I assumed, naively, that the problem must be that editors here simply didn't have enough training and experience in reading and summarizing the literature on a topic. I thought my skills at writing, reading, interpreting and summarizing research literature would come in handy to help improve the encyclopedia. It didn't take me long to see that that wasn't the problem at all. Experienced, policy-grounded content editors are actually very good at searching out, reading, and summarizing reliable sources; I've come to have a lot of respect for these editors. They don't need any help along those lines; they're doing fine. The problem comes when their efforts are hampered and impeded by those with a different agenda from creating a neutral, respected encyclopedia. Woonpton (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When there is an article on a fringe science topic, as Cold fusion has been considered -- certainly a reasonable position, though we should be careful about assuming that this continues when source supporting "fringe" is old and there is more recent, strong source indicating the opposite -- and when the literature is voluminous, only a "believer" is likely to know the literature well. Further, as Mathsci notes above, some fields are multidisciplinary. Cold fusion is an intersection between Electrochemistry and Nuclear physics. Who's expert? An electrochemist (very likely a believer, if this is a random electrochemist) or a nuclear physicist (likely not, but I don't know how "very.") My answer is both, and I also assert, for articles on a fringe topic, experts who are "believers" or "proponents" can be crucial to an article's balance. Jed Rothwell is not just a "promoter" of Cold fusion, he is a writer and edits very much of the published work on it, he maintains lenr-canr.org, which is the best on-line library on the topic, often recommended in reliable source, knows most of the major players (including skeptics), and has been doing this since, at least, the early 1990s, I forget the date. Most of the papers he has copies of he can't put up on his site because of no permissions, but it's entirely possible that he is more knowledgeable about what is in reliable source than any of the involved scientists, and I'm certain that he knows more than almost every skeptic, excepting perhaps Dieter Britz, who is a very rare bird, a skeptical electrochemist who keeps abreast of the literature, he and Rothwell cooperate on maintaining their on-line bibliographies. He's got no patience for theory, which he claims to not understand, his knowledge would be in the actual experimental reports. So I'd certainly agree that being a promoter of a fringe topic doesn't make one an expert, but being an expert in a fringe topic will often make one a promoter; skeptics are frequently less informed, because being informed takes work, and a skeptic may not have sufficient motivation to do that work, except for a few. Rothwell puts his money where his mouth is, he's funded or provided support in the form of expensive equipment to many of the researchers.

I can't tell what Rothwell would have been like if he'd not been met with years of incivility from JzG and others; as it is, it would be difficult to convince him to go through an unblock procedure, he believes Wikipedia is hopeless, and that has happened to lots of experts, all over the project, not just in fringe topics. We could fix this, but not where the cabal remains in control, except for selected experts who support cabal positions, and not where the cabal opposes changes fixing how we deal with experts because it might affect their control over topics of interest to them. --Abd (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really - deferring to subject matter experts is almost certainly the best way to write a good encyclopedia article, though. The problems come when an expert has an axe to grind or when a professed expert has merely failed to recognize their own shortcomings. I would support a principle stating that it is important for all editors to respect the complexity of the topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support A no-brainer. The problem, however, is wikipedia works to the lowest common denominator - "expertise" means assigning a higher value to some contributors views in certain areas - wiki lacks any mechanism for assessing that. Especially when editors are anonymous. Minkythecat (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not achieved by default(ing)

2) Meaningful consensus is only achieved by informed editors agreeing on a question, or at least agreeing to disagree. It is not achieved by wearing people out with sheer mass of text, wikilawyering, and nagging. So-called "consensus" that is only achieved by driving off or wearing out all opposing editors has no value. Discussion styles that have this effect are disruptive and wasteful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Abd's comments have that effect on other editors, even if he doesn't believe that they do, and even if he thinks those long comments are necessary for discussion, as shown here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Mathsci (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support with caveat: Nobody is required to study all of a long post. Why is there an implication that just because some long post exists, it must be studied entire (not skimmed or ignored)? Abd's many long posts haven't worn me out, at all.... V (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with V's comment above. People who want to contribute to a wikipedia article are likely to attempt to read or skim every recent post on the talk page because those posts often lead to article edits. I have done this for the cold fusion article for two years, and I believe Abd's text is extremely tedious and distracting to the other editors. As I see it, he does far more soapboxing than improving the article and should therefore be banned. Olorinish (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Olorinish, soapboxing and repetitions can be ignored. Abd's text is tedious only if one forces oneself to read all of it. The CORRECT counter to "freedom of speech" is the right to not listen. Shall I say to YOU: "I don't like the way you say what you say; therefore you should be silenced?" No? Then why are you saying that about Abd? V (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the wikipedia organization is to produce a useful encyclopedia, not to provide a forum for people to have free speech. Editor time is valuable and limited, so filling talk pages with useless text should not be allowed. Therefore, the correct counter to someone who fills talk pages with useless text should be a review by a panel of authorized experts/administrators, possibly followed by a ban. Olorinish (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Who defines "useless text"? Anything that does not support your POV? Most of Abd's text has been about Cold Fusion, one way or another. A considerable portion is about reasons why some particular item (usually a pro-CF item) might be included in the article. Which is exactly what the Talk page is for. When the proposal is opposed, that's where a lot of repetition enters the discussion. Did it ever occur to you that if there was less opposition to including something (either "pro" OR "con") in the article, there would be less argumentation about it? See my comment farther down, starting "I support Shanahan's point..." V (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is why talk comments need to be on point and brief to allow everyone to participate in discussion so consensus can be reached. Long rambling blocks of text either disenfranchise the writer or the reader and - most worrying - they tend to disenfranchise the reader when the writer insists on repeating the block of text ad nauseum. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Concur with everything said by Olorinish. Raul654 (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. "Discuss until consensus is reached" does not equate to "drown one's fellow editors in verbiage until they give up." Also note that "you don't have to read it" is erroneous, because Abd bases his subsequent actions on what he has written before. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• I support "Meaningful consensus is only achieved by informed editors agreeing on a question, or at least agreeing to disagree." but not the rest. I agree with V's comment above. I would disagree with Boris above in the following sense: one can easily skim Abd's posts to see if there is anything of import at the time in them. If there is, you read the relevant portions only. If there is not, you simply ignore it. If at some later time Abd takes an action pursuant to something you missed you are free to object at that time and must read the relevant post in detail only then. I find it simply absurd that the length of Abd's posts has become the main rallying point against him, not their substance. If that is the worst of Abd's sins here on Wikipedia then ArbCom's decision should be quite easy IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, GoRight; I was about to say some of the same thing. And Boris is a bit wrong on one point; Abd does not base his actions ONLY on what he has written before, else why would he be asking for consensus? And, I might remind all here a basic thing about the Editing Process: It involves distilling a lot of information. Duh, Abd provides a lot of information. If a would-be editor can't distill it, by skimming for gems and ignoring redundancies, what good is that person AS an editor? Whose competence should ACTUALLY be on trial here? V (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I do hope you're not trying to imply the other editors involved in this case are incompetent... Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

*I* don't imply any such thing. Any person who complains about the basic work of voluntary editing is, in my opinion, directly saying something about per-self's limitations as an editor. V (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought you were saying. In which case, I would remind you of the general warning issued to everyone involved in this case here and ask you to retract or reword your statements above accordingly. Attacks will not be tolerated. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you are blatantly misinterpreting what I wrote. ***I*** am not the one revealing a problem if some Person A complains about Fact B. The truth of that situation is that either Fact B is true (directly a problem), or Person A is unable to handle it in some fashion (directly a different problem). The INTENTION of Person A's complaint, almost always, is to put some focus on Fact B. That doesn't mean it can't backfire, and especially it doesn't mean it should never backfire. Let me give a specific unrelated-to-this-arbitration example: I live in a region that has a lot of jets flying around. Some people complain about the noise. Now, is the noise the problem, or the people? Me, my hearing is quite good and I want to protect it, so I put in earplugs, after which the noise doesn't bother me. Others can do the same. If they refuse, and would rather complain instead, what is the real problem there?

So, back to Wikipedia. I wrote that the editing process involves distilling information. I pointed out that doing so is voluntary. This Arbitration concerns, essentially, complaints about the quantity of information to distill, that is provided by one person, Abd. There is no doubt that the quantity is real. But why exactly must that be perceived as a problem??? The ones complaining don't have to edit the Cold Fusion article! They don't even have to read all of what Abd writes, as I also pointed out above. Do they simply want the task of editing to be easier? Who ever said that worthwhile tasks must be easy? Therefore I ask you, "In what way is it an "attack" to state something that is true?" V (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The attack comes in when you ask "Whose competence is really on trial here?" - when I asked if you were calling people incompetent, you replied that you were, so I don't see how I'm blatantly misinterpreting anything. If how you explained things just now is the point you're trying to make, I don't see why you didn't put it that way in the first place. That I understand, and it doesn't involve insulting anyone's intelligence. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I wrote, "Whose competence should ... be on trial here". And no, I did NOT call people incompetent. I wrote words to the effect that the complainers were calling themselves incompetent editors, by complaining about the length of Abd's posts. I attempted to explain the logic of that, above. I can try again: If I say, "I can't handle that!", or "That is too much for me to handle!", am I not saying I am incompetent to handle that? Therefore if I attempt to be clever, and say, "Abd writes too much", it logically follows that that is just a blame-shift, from myself to Abd, and my incompetence to handle what he writes, as an editor, is still revealed. V (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also support the following from V above: "And, I might remind all here a basic thing about the Editing Process: It involves distilling a lot of information. Duh, Abd provides a lot of information." This is an excellent point in Abd's favor here. It would be hard to argue that Abd is anything other than thorough and industrious at pulling together material for the things that he is focused on. When Abd is focused on content, as he was in Cold Fusion, these qualities can be highly beneficial to the project because he knows the policies well and he pulls in much applicable material for consideration that is otherwise hard to find. Even if that material is voluminous as some claim, it is none the less far more compact and digestible for other editors to review than is the entire of the internet and all other published sources. This seems obvious to me. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

GoRight says "When Abd is focused on content, as he was in Cold Fusion, these qualities can be highly beneficial..." He is correct that Abd does focus on content. The problem is that Abd hardly ever focuses on content RELATED TO EDITS OF THE ARTICLE. He rambles but does not propose edits to the article that can be debated concisely. That is the behavior that should stop. I realize that this is a judgement call, so I suggest that people look at the history of the cold fusion talk page. If other people think he is sufficiently focused, then fine. Olorinish (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Now this is a different complaint, and has some validity. Very often Abd presents data about something that he suggests could be presented in the article, without proposing specific text changes on the Talk page, regarding presentation of that "something". Then the argumentation begins, most often about whether or not some source or other is acceptable. However, in one sense it is perfectly logical to ask the other editors about a "something" to include, before getting to the details --why waste effort on writing proposed text when the whole idea of including the "something" has to be debated hotly first??? And that leads me again to what I wrote farther down, that begins, "I support Shanahan's point...". V (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I keep reading that you don't have to read the long postings but if you don't doesn't this give an editor the opportuntity to state that no disagreements with what I've said so 'edit made'? I see this kind of thing all the time so you have to read what is presented in discussions to know what, where, how and so on the editors in the discussion is planning on doing. Long postings of text is very harmful in my opinion and causes disruptions because editor do not read the long posts and the editor(s) who wrote the long posts uses that as a reason for change. Usually this causes edit wars, feuds, and actually can lead to name calling, assuming bad faith and down and down it goes. Not a good picture but this really happens and needs stopping. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Any evidence anyone has done that? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support Verbal chat 17:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Quality of rhetoric is not measured by the megabyte. Wikilawyering and nagging impede consensus building. Repeated assertions and a 'last editor standing' mentality are a form of tendentious editing. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Another variation of "Wikipedia is not a battleground". Consensus is not a war to be won, single editor's opinions are not more important than reasoned community decisions and driving folks out of a topic or project does not benefit our goals. Shell ^babelfish 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No personal attacks

3) Comparing other editors with Stalin violates WP:NPA and is unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps I should explain the reference and the context? From Wikiquote: The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. I made it a question. The context:

• Raul:Having Abd give a talk on expert retention and our treatment of science articles is sort of like having the fox give a lecture about hen house security.

• Abd:Wouldn't you want to know the opinion of the fox? Besides, I don't eat hens, only roosters. Hens I love for the eggs. Allowing Raul654 unconstrained, independent, unrequested checkuser access to help prevent "POV-pushers" that he banned from editing articles owned by his cabal is like ....? Like appointing Josef Stalin as Commissioner of Elections? What? I'll tell you what it isn't, for sure. It's not confidence-inspiring, like much administrative activity connected with the cabal.

I'd say there is some valuable argument here, but that, of course, will be ultimately up to ArbComm. I just know that Raul has been uncivil to editors he finds inconvenient for a very long time, and, were it necessary to prove it here, I would, but making his privileges the focus of this RfAr would be far too much for right now. It's enough that it be made clear that what he does is visible. ArbComm may decide to do something, or not, I have no idea, really. I didn't bring up the cabal to go after Raul, I'd have preferred to avoid it, but he's sure been waving big red flags. In any case, the meaning of the comparison with Stalin is precisely parallel to the original "fox guarding the henhouse" comment from Raul, a careful match, not escalating If one was uncivil, so was the other. And that the cabal only complains about incivility or offenses on the other side, and completely ignores that on the part of its own, is, again, a cabal trait, saying a great deal about Stephan Schulz, a cabal administrator, one of the first I saw, after Raul and WMC. (I didn't realize he was an admin, actually, because I never saw him use his tools while involved, it was always WMC, or Raul654, or R. Baley, as far as I recall. I just saw tag-team reverts and !votes in RfC/GoRight.)

This was brief. I've been saying for quite some time that the cabal hates my writing when it's profuse, but it hates it even more when it's brief. I was banned from Cold fusion when I reduced my writing to mostly edit summaries and article text, with only a relatively small amount of article Talk, compared to before, yet the number one argument presented here is my trademarked Wall-o-Text. --Abd (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed in reaction to [26]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject - Josef Stalin had many supporters, did he not? So while some people may consider such a comparison an attack, others may actually consider it a compliment. --GoRight (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, GoRight, you really ought to watch out for the wikilawyering. It wasn't a compliment. It was a clear implication that Raul is not necessarily trustworthy (precisely what he'd claimed about me, though I'm not guarding the henhouse and I am a fox, red beard and all, though it's almost all turned grey or white now, so I'm an old fox), and I'd say the way he obviously mangles evidence here, manufacturing much of it out of his wishful thinking presented as fact, leads me to little confidence as to how he handles secret checkuser evidence. It's a serious problem, and the appearance of bias, if nothing else, is causing problems and quite a bit of discontent among highly established editors. We'll see if the arbitrators comment on it. --Abd (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If everyone would just read what I actually wrote, they would recognize that I never claimed that you were giving Raul a compliment. I never took any position on what you meant either way. The current proposal that we are !voting on clearly states that any comparison to Stalin is automatically a personal attack. My comment refutes that assertion with laser-like precision, and nothing more. Clearly not ALL comparisons to Stalin are personal attacks as the current proposal claims and so it should be rejected as false simply because it is false on its face.

As an example, Stalin was arguably instrumental in the crushing of the Third Reich in WWII. In that sense the entire world owes Stalin a significant debt of gratitude regardless of whatever else he may have done. So comparisons to Stalin related to that part of his record would clearly NOT be a personal attack ... at least in the sense implied by the current proposal. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but are these Proposed Principles not supposed to have some broader applicability than simply this one case?

I also want to make something perfectly clear here, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR Abd. Let me repeat, I DO NOT SPEAK FOR Abd. Any views that I express are mine, and mine alone. --GoRight (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, GoRight, and with your explanation I can see that. However, I misunderstood your argument, and I expect that, given all the AGF I've come to have easily for you, I still misunderstood it, others would also, and so it was important for me to counter the impression of wikilawyering; I also consider that there was still a level of wikilawyering involved, even now, because the substance was passed over for the possibility of a positive interpretation. In response to an assertion that wasn't speculative at all, that baldly compared me to the fox with respect to the henhouse, I proposed a possible parallel in the other direction. This was not a positive comparison suggested; rather it was tinged with criticism. I'd say, legitimate criticism. Raul is guarding the henhouse, with checkuser and oversight, is he trusted to do so neutrally? Trust is the issue, not necessarily actual abuse. A Functionary not trusted by the community to be exemplary in behavior should not have those privileges, even if they never abuse them, and that's recently been established with checkuser and oversight privileges, by ArbComm, with Jayjg. That's a question before us, in fact. Yes, you do not speak for me, you speak for yourself, as I don't speak for you, we have quite different opinions on some things, even things related to this case, but your positions are always reasonable on some level, at least, and worthy of consideration. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Hardly complimentary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Clearly designed to cause offence. An attempt to make indirect personal attacks using loopholes in wikipedia civility guidelines. Mathsci (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Too general. Stalin may have had both good and bad qualities, as GoRight points out. It would be un-Wikipedian to make a "list of people Wikipedians are not allowed to compare someone to". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Support (changed to support after I finished writing my thoughts/comments) I think that all these comments about Stalin should be stricken immediately. It's bringing more heat than light and it's is unnecessary and it is uncivil. I would be very offended by this. Isn't there limits on saying things like this in an arbcom case at least? I am still learning but if this comment was on an article talk page it would have been refactored as being against WP:Talk. I am finding that things not allowed in the rest of the project is for some reason allowed in arbcom cases, strange. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Probably not necessary; prefer the above version which simply states that Abd has made personal attacks. Specific examples could be given there rather than roundly declaring Stalin problematic. Shell ^babelfish

Proposed findings of fact

Not enough experts

1) Wikipedia has difficulties in attracting and retaining experts. Especially for topics that are also subject to "balanced" coverage in the popular press, experts have a hard time defending real NPOV (reflecting the considered opinions of experts on a topic) against popular misconceptions. Randy in Boise seems to be able to tie up valuable contributor time forever.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Alas, all too obvious William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. However, in some fields, experts are more likely to be blocked or banned than ordinary editors. Experts tend to imagine, funny thing, that they know the field better than others, so incivility can be a problem, as an expert tries to explain an issue to someone who either doesn't have the background or doesn't have the patience to follow the explanation, and loses his or her temper. And it can take a lot of words, and experts can think their topic of expertise is highly interesting! My own view is that we need far more sophisticated ways of dealing with the problem of experts. For starters, many or most experts have a COI on the topics of expertise, so it is arguable that experts should advise us in Talk, and leave the editing to non-experts. We need both protect experts from unreasonable behavior by other editors and protect other editors from abuse by experts. Itchy block fingers don't help. Mathsci asserts expertise in math, and I have no particular reason to doubt that. However, it's clear what the result is for him: heavy attachment to articles he has substantially edited. When an editor finds that the article is unnecessarily obfuscatory or full of jargon that might take a huge amount of research and study for an ordinary reader to follow, and tries to edit it to make it comprehensible, Mathsci may edit war, or call for administrative assistance, and there is a fairly clear case of that recently involving WMC. Mathsci, to demonstrate his credentials as an editor to me, pointed me to articles he'd created. With The Four Seasons (Poussin), I commend him for his fascinating article. I assume he has no WP:COI there. However, Differential geometry of surfaces and Plancherel theorem for spherical functions, he also asserted as examples, are impenetrable jargon, very poorly written for a general-audience encyclopedia. I'm pretty confident that these topics could be far better described in ordinary language, if not thoroughly explored without establishing the specialized language (which can be done,it's an aspect of good technical writing. What we have here is what some kinds of experts will produce if not stringently edited. There is a reason why experts use specialized language: it's precise. But that very precision can be a barrier to understanding; hence an introduction to a topic will avoid the specialized language at the beginning. But this introduces lack of perfect expression, which can be horrifying to an expert. Mathsci's profession is a barrier to his being a good managing editor on topics where he is expert. A much better article would result from a cooperative interaction between experts and ordinary readers, and the latter would insist on comprehensibility, while the former may be more concerned with accuracy. If they find consensus, it's likely to be pretty good! But would Mathsci permit this "ignorant editor" to work on the article? From my observations, not. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As to Kirk shanahan, see Mathsci's comment below, he is a kind of expert, to be sure, and he confines himself to Talk, as he should, but his suggestions can be highly misleading, he knows his own subspecialty and is a bit obsessed by it, and his comments about other editors can be quite uncivil, making my point above. He is a rare bird, one of the most recently published under peer review with criticism of the excess heat phenomenon that was the core discovery -- or allegation -- in 1989. Most other scientists, among those who have reviewed the evidence in depth, as can be documented, have accepted excess heat as real, or possibly real, explanation still not clear. Shanahan is actually quite isolated, but valuable as someone who has criticized cold fusion since the early 1990s, so sometimes he can point to evidence that the rest of us would miss. He does so with heavy bias, though, his interpretations and reports of what is in RS are unreliable. Pcarbonn, apparently an expert, currently a researcher employed in the field, topic banned. ScienceApologist, a physicist and possibly a particle physicist, still allowed to edit Talk, but banned from the article (as he possibly should be from COI), but he doesn't. I wish he would. And JedRothwell, possibly one of the most knowledgeable people in the world on the overall topic, not as a scientist, but as a writer and editor (he edits papers for scientists whose native language is not English, apparently he's currently working on papers on cold fusion for Naturwissenschaften), blocked and considered by some to be banned, even though he confined himself to Talk since 2006. An IP editor showed up in December whose POV resembled, to a non-expert (JzG) that of Jed Rothwell, blocked by JzG as a sock, quite blatantly an error. Basically, if an expert in the field, someone familiar with the research, starts editing the article, or even just commenting in Talk, they will meet severe opposition. That's what happened to me as I developed my knowledge of the field through reading the sources, and reported what I found, and even more opposition when I stopped talking and started actually editing, adding sourced material. Yes, sources satisfying WP:RS. I'm still not a true expert, but am far more so, I'd guess, than any other current editor I've seen show up at the article. It's all relative. SA has more knowledge of nuclear physics, I'm sure, but is Cold fusion a nuclear physics article? There is a contradiction involved in asserting that it is! Does he know the recent research published under peer review, and the peer-reviewed secondary sources on this particular topic? It is quite arguable that it's a chemistry or electrochemistry article, and opinion among electrochemists -- experts in calorimetry -- and nuclear physics -- experts in physics that developed largely with an assumption that the chemical environment was irrelevant to nuclear processes -- is apparently quite divergent. What's the mainstream view? Mainstream what? --Abd (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Every once in a while you encounter a "Randy in Boise" guy, and it takes ages to get rid of him, or even to get him to understand his position that is not supported by sources, and to explain the problems with the sources that he presents. Experts have better things to do with their lives than wasting time in volunteer projects that allow this thing to prolongate so much in time. If they don't see clear support from wikipedia then they will just go away, or they will go to more obscure articles with no controversies, leaving those articles to be controlled by Randy in Boise, who will makes a mess that someone will later have to clean up. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. One such expert Kirk shanahan has privately communicated with me by email his own experiences at cold fusion. He has given permission for his comments to be disclosed if that is deemed appropriate. Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I have replied to part of Abd's irrelevant and rambling comments about me on the discussion page where this sort of off-topic stuff belongs, if anywhere.

Here is Kirk shanahan's email that he has said I may reproduce:

“ The problem with getting more involved in the Wiki CF article is not whether I have the time or not, it is in whether or not I can expect any return on the investment I make. So far, after two attempts to modify the Wiki article (2005 and 2008), I have to conclude I can expect no return (the 'return' being an inclusion of why the mainstream doesn't think cold fusion is real in the article). Therefore any addition to the debate going on (on Cryptic C62's CF page right?) is pointless.

You see, everyone is happy as long as there is no one trying to add mainstream thought to the article. But as soon as I try, the Wikilawyers come out of the woodwork. First it was PCarbonn and Jed Rothwell, then V, then Abd. I suspect the supply is endless. The fundamental problem is that Wiki editors are unwilling to realize that there is nearly no RS on the mainstream side, since, as is noted in the current article, the field was declared 'pariah' around 1993-4. They don't want to understand that that means no one is doing _any_ work in the field except the fanatics (who have abandoned critical review), and thus _no_ negative articles get published and there is no base of information for news reporters to use to write cogent descriptions of the mainstream side. Yet a chemist can look at the pro-CF papers that are published and tick off multiple problems in analytical technique that invalidate the _conclusions_ presented in the papers, and it is those conclusions that end up in news reports and in Wiki articles. In order to get a NPOV article, the RS rule must be relaxed to take this situation into account, and no one seems to be willing to do that. So, any time I try to contribute, I get Wikilawyered. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result to occur. I like to think I am sane, so I have deliberately stopped any significant contributions to the CF debate at Wiki, except to occasionally point out some facts like my most recent comment on the Widom-Larsen theory and the SPAWAR results. It's not really relevant to the science anyway.

”

• In my experience, the problem is that the people who most readily adopt and self-apply the mantle of "expert" tend to be closer to enthusiastic amateur than true subject-matter expert. And the more loudly someone asserts their "expertise", the more likely they're pushing a minoritarian point of view way out of proportion to its actual relevance. To extend Stephan's analogy, Randy in Boise is likely to assert that he is an "expert" on the sword-skeleton theory, since he has researched and published extensively on it (on his own website) while Thucydides, Donald Kagan, and Victor Herbert Davis are totally silent on the topic.

  People who are working to make this a more serious, respectable reference work don't need to constantly fall back on their "expertise" - they have recourse to actual reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I honestly don't mean this to be a snide comment, but is there a point here? What is it? Yes we have trouble retaining experts. So what? Are you planning an as of yet unwritten proposed remedy for this? I am also a bit vague on how this applies to the case at hand. This just strikes me as being a random fact. Can you please attempt to enlighten me on these points? --GoRight (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes we have trouble retaining experts - Abd and other anti-science crackpots are actively driving away actual subject matter experts. But since GoRight is having difficulty making the connection to this case, perhaps Stephan Schulz should rewrite this proposal to be less abstract and make the Abd connection more clear. Raul654 (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support Shanahan's point that, basically, there has been too much demand for WP:RS over WP:Verify in the CF article. The demand prevents much data that readers might find interesting (regardless of "pro" or "con") from getting added. The demand is also somewhat inconsistent with respect to the whole of Wikipedia, in my opinion, since many articles include news of recent events, without waiting for third-party reviews of second-party descriptions of those events. For them, WP:Verify seems "good enough". To the extent that CF detractors insist that the phenomenon is not real, it seems to me that WP:Verify should be good enough for that article, too, for sources of claims and counterclaims. But if it should ever become Officially Verified (whatever that means in the scientific community), then at that time it could be quite appropriate to clamp down on sources, restricting them to the WP:RS set like the other solid-science articles. V (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind Stephan, I have done so myself above. Raul654 (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Raul is making serious charges with no evidence. "Driving away actual subject matter experts?" Examples? The history shows the opposite, the experts who have been driven away were not driven away by me. Does anyone notice that the "expert" Shanahan is arguing against RS guidelines? I've stated he's valuable, but his view is highly biased and highly misleading. He tells half the story, and what he says is often not supported by the sources. Cold fusion work is now being published, for example, in Naturwissenschaften, which is a mainstream, major interdisciplinary journal. That's been happening for some years now. Surely there would appear some skeptical responses (and, indeed, there are some); at least if the "rejection" of cold fusion was based on science, and not simply on fear, which it appears much of it was. Simon covers this: for quite some time, and there is evidence it still is true, if you supported cold fusion, or even tried to research it, there went your career. We have one impoverished article for a field that could justify many articles, on the history, the various kinds of research and the techniques, the theories, of which there are many, and the very name "cold fusion" is misleading. It might not be fusion at all, though the consistent, verified detection of helium correlated with excess heat makes fusion very likely as a part of the explanation. It's clear that it's not what was expected in 1989, and that explains a great deal of the difficulty in the field. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Abd could you move your comment to the appropriate section or could a clerk please move? Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, my understanding is that parties may respond in situ, the "parties" section is a privilege, not a prison. It seems that R. Baley is not alone, so I'd appreciate clarification from a clerk or discussion on Talk. I could see an argument for avoiding threaded discussion on the Workshop page as well as on the Evidence page, but that isn't the status quo. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No matter how you interpret the "Parties" vs "Others" section, it's self-evident that this comment would be better placed as a comment to Raul's actual suggestion, and not as a reply to his announcement that he made one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, not really relevant in this way. The (real) experts that have been driven away/banned were driven away/banned after lengthy discussions on relevant noticeboards (WP:AN/WP:AN/I/WP:COI/N/WP:RS/N, &c.), or even arbitration cases because of continued 'violation' of policies and guidelines (i.e., not by one editor alone, and AFAIK certainly not by User:Abd alone). The problem is that the remaining experts in the relevant cases (e.g. Cold fusion) were 'driven away' because there are editors who only seem to want to listen to the 'real' expert's opinions (those experts who were banned) and do not want to follow the consensus that is developing with the remaining experts, or who will not see that although the expert's original input was true, it was (totally) not neutral, (totally) not to the point, or 'cherry picking'. Instead, they insist that that information needs to be incorporated as the experts incorporated it originally.

Some parts of Wikipedia are actively attracting experts, and are very closely cooperating with them with great success, and I have in the past been involved with retention of some experts in varying fileds (who nonetheless do have a very strong conflict of interest!). However, there are several other cases where the only solution is blocking/banning.

We must accept that certain experts do not see/do not wish to see/do not want to see/disagree and hence disobey 'what Wikipedia is not'. Yes, not having those experts around may be a loss, but not having the experts here does not mean that the information on Wikipedia becomes untrue, or that that is the end of Wikipedia! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Is Beetstra referring to editors like Pcarbonn or like Kirk shanahan? Or perhaps SA? I think that in the present case Stephan Schulz means a professor, post doc or Ph.D. in chemistry or physics at a university or a research scientist at a recognized research establishment, not a fringe advocate like "Jed Rothwell" or "Steven B. Krivit" with no advanced training in science. These are self-proclaimed "experts" - I think Abd has even called them "experts". Where fringe science or pseudoscience is involved, wikipedia must follow the mainstream scientific method and make cautious use of sources: that is what editors like EdChem with some established expertise in science can help with. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Krivit has been called a "leading authority" on cold fusion in a press release from the American Chemical Society (see my evidence section). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Try writing a wikipedia BLP on Steven B. Krivit, with definitive evidence that he is a leading scientific authority and not just a journalist, hooked on cold fusion. It is also possible to make assertions of this kind unchallenged in a google knol, like this one on cold fusion by Jed Rothwell. [27] Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was meaning this quite general. E,g, Jed Rothwell and Steven B. Krivit may not be acknowledged experts in the field, they undoubtedly know quite a bit. They do have a POV, which they strongly show. Same goes for some other editors who have been banned. They do know the field, and they do know how to portray it in the way that it looks positive (that does however mean you also know the negative parts which you may want to ignore). Those people could have been very useful, if they would have, very, very strictly, followed WP:NPOV. However, they got banned, mostly by community sanction. What is left behind, are other experts who try to follow WP:NPOV, and which do not have a gain in showing it positive or negative. And those are editors who, I feel, are now either not helping on these articles anymore, or which are afraid to help.

Other fields on Wikipedia have, and still are, actively cooperating with (even commercial) expert entities, and I can show editors who are actively attracting more of these. It can be done.

But this statement is as such not relevant to this case. Wikipedia does not have this problem, there are numerous example cases out there where experts are very helpful, and have been actively retained and are very strictly honouring our policies and guidelines. If written for Cold fusion, yeah, then it might be true. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Per GoRight: relevance to this case? Also not sure about "real NPOV" (who decides?) etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  Weak support, but note that to me, as far as cold fusion is concerned, this reads as supporting more use of peer-reviewed scientific literature and less of popular media, which would result in a more positive presentation of cold fusion. It also seems to me to support welcoming people such as Jed Rothwell (who has extensive knowledge of the literature) to participate on the cold fusion talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Beating people with the UNDUE stick at the door until they understand reliability-weighting would also be acceptable. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd appears to be structurally incapable of recognizing being in the wrong

2) From the evidence presented by Abd, it seems to be clear that, for all the rhetorical humility, Abd is in firm possession of the TRUTH, or at least the final arbiter of it. No matter how strong the opposition, there is always some reason (insufficient research, cabalism, appeal to some mythical larger support group that would have show up if Abd hadn't gracefully tried to minimize disruption) why it can be dismissed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed. I've got two awards for ("infinite") patience and the ability to keep my temper on my user page, but I'm so fed up with Abd's combination of pseudo-post-modernism ("every opinion is equally valuable, except mine, because I'm right"), mock-humility ("I may be wrong, but then I'm not") and random innuendo (Crohnie is in the cabal?) that I want to hard-block him just to shut up this stream of insulting nonsense for a few hours. And I can't wait how long it will take for EyeSerene to become part of the cabal now... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Abd banned from Wikipedia policy pages and controversal topics

1) Abd is banned from Wikipedia policy pages and controversial topics, including talk pages. Controversial topics include fringe- and pseudoscience topics. If there is any doubt, an uninvolved administrator or any three users in good standing can decide decide if a given pages falls under this ban. The ban lasts for no less than 6 months, after which Abd may ask the committee to re-evaluate the situation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed. The aim is to redirect Abd's undoubted energy from self-destructive discussions in support of fringe opinions (both directly and by trying to modify Wikipedia's working system) towards real encyclopedic work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Mmmmm, something along these lines is definitely needed, but this wording is too vague. Just make it a clearly defined ban from Cold fusion and related articles and from policy pages; a wider ban could be phrased as applying to Category:Fringe science and Category:Pseudoscience and their proper subcategories. Problems of miscategorization should be kicked up to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement rather than whoever happens to be around. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:GoRight

Proposed principles

I am actually a tad reluctant to even make these proposals as they are being made strictly in response to Raul's proposals above. For that reason I see them as being out of scope and arguably a distraction from the case at hand. However, since Raul has seen fit to make this proceeding a WP:BATTLEGROUND for his personal grudges which are wholly unrelated to the case at hand I feel that I must present some additional good faith alternatives to his proposals above.

Pursuant to this comment I have considered each of my proposals below. To the limited extent that the partial reversion of a few of Jed Rothwell's comments is pertinent to this case, I believe that all of these proposals are applicable, in scope, and I would ask that they be given serious consideration.

I believe that adopting them would have benefits which reach far beyond this one case given the stated intentions of certain administrators which are likely to cause additional disruption across the project unless these points are made clear.

The policy was written so as to specifically recognize that in cases were there is benefit to the project for doing so, the content of even banned users may be reverted so long as the editor performing the revert has verified its content, has their own reasons for considering it beneficial to the project, and is willing to accept responsibility for the content under their own name.

Restoration of Constructive Content

1) The simple act of restoring content, either by revert or refactoring, which is pertinent to the advancement of the project and otherwise within policy shall NOT be construed as proxying or meat puppetry regardless of the origins of that content or the namespace in which the restoration occurred. Any user who performs such a restoration takes full personal responsibility for the content actually restored.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed The advancement of the project should not be hampered by the automatic and unthinking application of other principles or policies such as WP:MEAT. If constructive content is identified it should be adopted regardless of its origins. --GoRight (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject. Patently contradicted by Wikipedia:Banning policy, which states: Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. Notice that it does *not* say "taking responsibility" for an edit is not meatpuppetry, nor does it say it is not a violation of policy. Also notice that policy only allows someone to take responsibility for edits which are "verifiable" (presumably referring only to article edits) and where the person doing the restoration has "independent reasons for making them" and that GoRight has conviently omitted both of these conditions from his proposal. This is a rather transparent attempt by GoRight to retroactively justify his and Abd's violations of the policy. Raul654 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." - Note the key phrase "at the direction of" requires an established communication between the puppet and its master. Note also that "unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them" does NOT limit its scope to mainspace articles as Raul asserts.

"Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing." - Note the key phrase "reinstating edits", again no restriction on mainspace articles. Note also that the key phrase is "may be viewed" not must or shall be viewed. Note that the phrase "unless they are able" which suggests that such edits are permissible as long as they are verifiable and the editor making the restoration has independent reasons for doing so. One such reason might be that the edit actually contained constructive content that was pertinent to the advancement of the project. ArbCom should affirm that that such cases do not constitute meat puppetry.

Now note the part that Raul leaves out from the banning policy, "Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus. It strongly discourages this form of editing, and new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.". Note that Abd is clearly NOT a new account, nor is he editing solely for any of the purposes called out above. I would argue that the same applies to myself as well, but you can come to your own conclusions on that count. --GoRight (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note the key phrase "at the direction of" requires an established communication between the puppet and its master. - it requires no such thing. If I do an action because someone else did it first (like restoring their edit, or reposting their talk page comments), I am acting at their direction, even if I have not had an a-priori contact with them.

Note also that "unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them" does NOT limit its scope to mainspace articles as Raul asserts. Yes, it does. Talk page edits are not required to be "verifiable", while article edits are (--Wikipedia:Verifiability). The sentence is clearly referring to article edits, GoRight's wikilawyering not withstanding.

Note the key phrase "reinstating edits", again no restriction on mainspace articles. - that's because the immediately prior sentence restricts it to "verifiable" mainspace edits.

Note also that the key phrase is "may be viewed" not must or shall be viewed. - Restorations of banned users' edits should be rare and only done in non-controversial cases. Determining whether or not an edit was meatpuppetry is up to other Wikipedians. If *any* of them choose to call it meatpuppetry, then it is meatpuppetry. And that should serve as a big red flag to anyone thinking about doing it.

Note that the phrase "unless they are able" which suggests that such edits are permissible as long as they are verifiable and the editor making the restoration has independent reasons for doing so. - nice try, but you are totally ignoring the sentence that directly addresses this point: "Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban." This means that such edits should be avoided, even if they are permissable under the letter of the banning policy.

Note that Abd is clearly NOT a new account, nor is he editing solely for any of the purposes called out above. I would argue that the same applies to myself as well, but you can come to your own conclusions on that count. - GoRight is hanging his hat on applying the restrictions against acting as a meatpuppet as applying only to new users. Well, the arbcom is not obligated to follow that precise definition -- if they choose to view Abd as acting as a meatpuppet for Jed and Scibaby, despite the fact that Abd is not new, they they are well within their rights to do so. Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"If *any* of them choose to call it meatpuppetry, then it is meatpuppetry." - I think that given the context this clearly demonstrates Raul's ultimate goals in making these proposals. Well, that coupled with his prior statements regarding the impact of such ArbCom rulings on the community. He is merely trying to setup ArbCom to be his excuse for blocking people he disagrees with by labeling them meat puppets of Scibaby on his say so alone. Note that this discussion, [28] [29] [30] [31] in regards to Raul's checkuser practices is also quite illuminating, especially given his recent admission at the end of this. Quite a bit of power he is trying to carve out there. I would urge the Arbiters to consider this point carefully in their deliberations. As to the rest of this I have made my points and shall rely on the arbiters to render a fair and even-handed ruling. --GoRight (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that given the context this clearly demonstrates Raul's ultimate goals in making these proposals. - You have acted as a meatpuppet for Scibaby on a number of prior occasions, and have tried twice now to wikilawyer your way around the consequences (first by editing the banning policy, and now by trying to get the arbcom to adopt these ridiculous proposals that have no basis in policy). My ultimate goal here is that nobody is allowed to meatpuppet for him, and if you continue to do so, that you are banned for meatpuppetry. Clear enough? Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your disruption of this proceeding in the pursuit of your own personal grudges which are totally unrelated to this case is duly noted. --GoRight (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My disruption of these proceedings? Pot, meet kettle. Black. Raul654 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly reject. Please reread the policies and not over analyze things. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  What possible reason could you have to "strongly reject" the restoration of constructive content? Please elaborate. --GoRight (talk) 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't seem helpful. Mathsci (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support if a phrase is inserted such as "merely because it is being restored": that is, that it is not to be automatically considered meatpuppetry just because someone is restoring content from a banned user, but that it can still be meatpuppetry if there are other circumstances making it such, i.e. doing it as a favour to the banned user (whether or not there was direct communication) rather than for the purpose of improving the project and with full responsibility. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong reject Contradicts both policy and practice. Would add a ridiculous burden for other editors and adds an untenable loophole to be exploited by blocked and banned editors and other wikilawyers. Unhelpful and would add to our problems. Verbal chat 16:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely not Banned editors are banned; their contributions, however benign, are not welcome. If you think their comments have merit, investigate and then start a discussion based on your own understanding. Do not encourage those who were ultimately unable to work within the community. Shell ^babelfish 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Meat Puppetry Inherently Requires the Direction of a Puppet Master

2) Meat puppetry inherently involves having the puppet act at the direction of a puppet master. To successfully demonstrate that an editor is acting as a meat puppet requires that reasonable evidence be presented to demonstrate that the accused is explicitly acting at the direction of another editor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Too narrow interpretation of policy, basically renders it useless. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --GoRight (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Reject. Flatly contradicted by Wikipedia:Banning policy, which says that Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry.. Notice there is no requirement that the person restoring the banned user's content be doing so at the behest of the banned user. As with GoRight's other proposed principle, this is a transparent attempt by him to retroactively justify his and Abd's previous violations of the policy. Raul654 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note the selective nature of Raul's quoting of policy. Just a few minutes ago he quoted this above: "Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user". Highlighting is mine. --GoRight (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GoRight seems to think "at the direction of" requires direct communications between the banned user and the meatpuppet. He is wrong -- it means acting at the behest of another user, even if you've never talked with him or her. GoRight's interpretation is contrary to both the spirit and the usual application of the policy. Raul654 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall rely upon the arbiters to decide whether Raul's implied meaning of "at the behest of" means the same thing as "at the direction of". The policy clearly states "at the direction of". --GoRight (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What poppycock. The contortions you are going through to enable Abd's disruption are becoming laughable now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are correct then undoubtedly the arbiters will see it as you do. Regarding the actual meaning of "behest", I simply refer you to an impartial source. So, if by "contortions" you mean "a clear reading of the actual text", then I stand guilty as charged. --GoRight (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

actually i'd prefer you not to try and reinterpret my text in your own meaning, nor would i like you to put words in my mouth. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It was never my intention to do either, but if I did I apologize. If you want I can give you a revised response but please provide a clarification of your original meaning first. If not, then we appear to be done here. --GoRight (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly reject. Please reread policy and guidelines about this. It's been made clear on multiple ocassions that this is not what is meant. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  I would respectfully suggest that you might do the same. If this is not what is meant then perhaps the policy and guidelines should be updated to reflect what actually is meant, as you claim, since it has also been pointed out on multiple occasions that this IS what the actual text says. --GoRight (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Incorrect interpetation of meatpuppetry. Mathsci (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• QUESTION: What if Person A gets himself banned, and Person B comes along who has independently formed similar opinions, but has never heard of Person A? If Person B examines an article History and decides that something Person A wrote (and got reverted) belongs back in the article, there appears to be nothing in the Rules to distinguish Person B from a meatpuppet of Person A. Yet, in this example, Person B clearly is no such thing; the assumption of meatpuppetry will be made by whoever supported the banning of Person A. Therefore, the Question is, "How should meatpuppetry be defined, to prevent such assumptions from being made?" V (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. First of all, a lot of the purpose of the meatpuppetry policy is that it's difficult to tell the difference between meatpuppets and sockpuppets, so it's easier to just treat accounts as sockpuppets if they act like sockpuppets, even if they're really meatpuppets. Requiring proof takes away that simple enforcement. Secondly, meatpuppetry occurs (as I understand it) if someone talks about a dispute and their friends, hearing it, go and edit, even if there was no explicit request made. I think it can be considered meatpuppetry even if someone edits based on a guess as to what someone wants, rather than taking responsibility for the edit themselves. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This isn't what the policy says, and arbcom can't make new policy. Verbal chat 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Reject Unenforceable. Meatpuppetry happens offsite; Wikipedia has no control over such communication and "proof" would likely be impossible. Common sense is used to differentiate between editors with similar ideas and meatpuppets. Shell ^babelfish 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Portions of the existing WP:BAN policy are acknowledged and reaffirmed.

3) The following [highlighted] portions of the now existing WP:BAN policy are hereby emphasized and affirmed acknowledged and reaffirmed:

In section titled "Editing on behalf of banned users":

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that have not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted. Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing a survey, performing reverts, or otherwise attempting to give the appearance of consensus. It strongly discourages this form of editing, and new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining.

In section titled "Enforcement by reverting edits":

Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Users who reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for the content by so doing. It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-g5}}, or its alternative name {{db-banned}}, to mark such a page. If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is probably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.

NOTE: The highlighting above only illustrates the points which are being emphasized and affirmed acknowledged and reaffirmed within this principle. There is no intent that the actual text of the policy be so modified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. Goes against the spirit of the policy, renders it useless, tries to write policy in stone by having Arbcom reinforce it (I expect GoRight to later point out at this principle every time that he tries to restore the edit of a banned editor). Others points other flaws below. Kind of reminds how Martinphi wikilawyered about WP:FRINGE so he could run loops around it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --GoRight (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification My sole purpose in making this proposal is simply to explicitly affirm that these rules are not cast in stone nor is someone that makes a good faith restoration of content automatically a meat puppet. Exceptions, as Raul would refer to them, are written into this policy and reflected in actual practice for good and valid reasons and other proposals being made appear to downplay or eliminate entirely any notion of such exceptions being valid in any way. --GoRight (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - GoRight has highlighted basically every caveat and exception in the above policy, and wants the arbcom to affirm them as if they are somehow representative of the policy. They are not. The policy is that edits by banned users should not be restored. "Affirming" exceptions to this rule is perverse. Raul654 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: How specific is that word "restored"? Verbatim? Saying an equivalent thing in different words? Does this mean that all some POV-pusher A has to do is (1) Get another POV-pusher B to present all aspects of the opposite POV, and then (2) A works to get B banned, thereby disallowing the entire opposing POV? Has anyone besides me noticed this seems to be getting tried in the CF article? V (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Has anyone besides me noticed this seems to be getting tried in the CF article?" - You are not alone, although the regular editors at CF (i.e. the ones who focus most of their effort there specifically) may be getting unfairly caught in the cross fire. --GoRight (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

WMC reaffirms WP:BURO above. My proposal simply extends his affirmation into a specific policy as it is currently written. My proposal also makes WP:IAR, another policy BTW, explicit in this context for when there is good reason to do so. Note that "at the direction of a banned user" is not an exception, it IS the rule. Neither is the bit about users taking responsibility an exception, that IS the rule. Note that both of these statements would be wholly unnecessary in the text of the policy if your interpretation thereof were, in fact, the correct one. --GoRight (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My proposal simply extends his affirmation into a specific policy as it is currently written. - translation - after two failed attempts to rewrite policy above, you've decided instead to try to get the arbcom to re-affirm the parts of the policy you like -- which coincidentally are exceptions to the rule.

Note that "at the direction of a banned user" is not an exception, it IS the rule. Neither is the bit about users taking responsibility an exception, it IS the rule. - no, the rule is that you shouldn't be restoring edits by banned users. The exception to that rule is if a banned user happens to make a verifiability good main space edit, you can restore it (although other users are perfectly free to label it as meatpuppetry). You want the arbcom to re-affirm the exception, rather than the rule. Raul654 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply cannot let this slip by. Your statement, "you shouldn't be restoring edits by banned users" is more accurately stated as "you shouldn't be restoring edits by banned users at their direction" if one wants to reflect the letter and the spirit the actual policy. --GoRight (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if one wants to adhere to the actual letter of the policy, you shouldn't be restoring edits unless you are "able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them". I notice you seem to keep neglecting those two requirements and have instead repeatedly tried to substitute the meaningless phrase "for the advancement of the project" in their place. Raul654 (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not neglecting anything. I am proposing principles that ArbCom is free to accept or disregard as they see fit. And note that I have highlighted those very points in this very proposal and you complained about it calling them exceptions. No, Raul, you are the one that wishes to discount them, not me. See your own proposals in that regard. I'll tell you what, Raul, if I add those points to my other proposals will you remove your objections? --GoRight (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Arbitration is not for changing the emphasis of wikipedia policy and it is outwith the purview of the arbitration committee to do this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the emphasis in the actual policy be changed. The emphasis here merely highlights the points being stressed and affirmed by this statement of principle. --GoRight (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The policy already exists - no need for emphasis. None of these proposals of GoRight have been helpful, Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Enric "Goes against the spirit of the policy, renders it useless" - I would simply point out that I have not changed a single word of the policy here. All of the highlighted text already exists. An affirmation here merely acknowledges that fact, so it cannot go against the spirit of the policy or render it useless. --GoRight (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional Response to Enric "I expect GoRight to later point out at this principle every time that he tries to restore the edit of a banned editor" - I hereby openly acknowledge that Enric is 100% correct on this point. While I do not make a habit of wholesale reverting the edits of banned users, on the rare occasion where I might do so my reasons for citing this principle would be: (1) I would not seek to restore any such content unless I believed that it had value to the project and I was willing to take full responsibility for it, and (2) referencing this principle would help to reduce the unnecessary disruption and drama that would ensue if someone attempted to paint me (or anyone else for that matter) as a meat puppet simply for restoring constructive content in these types of circumstances. Either the highlighted principles are part of the policy, or they are not. If they are then they should be accepted and respected. If they are not then they should be removed from the policy statement to avoid further confusion and disruption on these points. --GoRight (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The Wikipedia community has a term for "asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express." The term isn't regarded positively. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but in what way is this proposal "asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express?" It does not. I assert that the underlying principles that you refer to specifically include the points I have highlighted. If they did not why were the highlighted portions included in the text of the policy in the first place? I am quite confident that whomever drafted this description of the underlying practices was both diligent in their efforts to reflect the actual practices involved and careful in their wording. Can you provide an explanation for why the highlighted portions of the policy where included and phrased the way that they were if they do not constitute any reflection of an underlying principle? --GoRight (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Certain administrators and others would refer to the portions highlighted above as being "the exceptions". I just want to make an important point crystal clear: these are NOT exceptions to the policy, they are exceptions which are part of the policy. As such they cannot simply be ignored as some might desire. --GoRight (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Policy is policy. Trying to pretend the explicit exceptions are not there is ludicrous. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary and would simply be a tool for wikilawyering, like other proposals. Verbal chat 16:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
• Reject this wikilawyering attempt to justify problematic behavior. Abd's other behavior in regards to banned users such as wikilawyering for the release of their ban, advising them to circumvent their ban etc. makes it clear that this is more than simple agreement with points made by a banned user. Shell ^babelfish 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Expert opinion from all viewpoints of a topic is essential

4) Many topics covered on Wikipedia are so complex that expert knowledge is necessary to properly understand and contextualize them. This concept extends to all of the various significant published viewpoints within a topic, and articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed --GoRight (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think enough time has passed at this point. Please note that this was a carefully constructed proposal and one specifically designed to illustrate a key point. This proposal took SS's proposal, verbatim, and combined it with two key phrases lifted directly from WP:NPOV. Now, to discern the key point I am illustrating first observe the WP:SNOW that came down in support of SS's version of this principle. Now observe the complete lack of WP:SNOW for this proposal by the very same people. Finally, take note of the difference in text between SS's proposal and my proposal here and ask yourself why people might WP:SNOW support SS's version but completely ignore this one? I think the answer is obvious. --GoRight (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. See my comment to Stephen Schulz's proposed principle "Expert opinion is essential" above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good intentions

5) Inappropriate conduct undertaken in the service of a noble cause is still inappropriate conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Borrowed from an unrelated arbitration case, [32]. This should apply, obviously, to the findings of fact related to WMC and Raul654 being involved in a content dispute at the times in which they used their administrative tools. In both cases the correct action on their part would have been to get an uninvolved administrator or checkuser to agree to do the work. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig points out that this overlaps with a proposal by FloNight, [33]. Either wording is acceptable to me in this case. I shall leave this proposal as is for continuity within my section. --GoRight (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

User:William M. Connolley disputes whether a community ban of User:Abd from Cold fusion and its talk page ever really existed.

1) User:William M. Connolley disputes whether a community ban of User:Abd from Cold fusion and its talk page ever really existed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - User:William M. Connolley has stated "the community ban never really existed. I can see no functional evidence of its existence.", see [34]. --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. The diff shows him saying so. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley has NOT asserted a recognized basis for an administrative ban of User:Abd from Cold fusion or its talk page.

2) User:William M. Connolley has NOT asserted a recognized basis for an administrative ban of User:Abd from Cold fusion or its talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - The Wikipedia Banning Policy allows for administrative bans, [35], only under ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions. User:William M. Connolley has not asserted any of those discretionary sanctions as the basis of his ban, and as shown above he disputes whether a community ban ever really existed. --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. He "deflect[ed]" a question about the reason for the ban. [36] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley has blocked User:Abd citing an administrative ban which has no recognized basis.

3) User:William M. Connolley has blocked User:Abd citing an administrative ban which has no recognized basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose no basis... except for being endorsed by the community at ANI, eh? This is pure wikilawyering about policies. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - See [37] and [38]. --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• All of my evidence is available here.
• [39] - WMC asserts his administrative ban.
• [40] - Abd' first comments disputing the ban.
• [41] - Abd formally rejects WMC's ban.

Updated per suggestions below. --GoRight (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. It was simply declared by WMC; there is no policy or procedure to declare such; and discussion of its validity was ongoing at the time in this case. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, Abd declared that this ban 'which has no recognized basis' was over, thereby recognizing that there was a ban, and got blocked for it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this is an inaccurate summary of what actually occurred. We must be precise in our terms here. I believe that Abd has always disputed WMC's administrative ban (i.e. the only type of ban WMC can issue without community discussion). Instead Abd accepted and voluntarily extended the community ban imposed by Heimstern following community discussion at AN/I, which is distinctly separate and apart from the administrative ban that WMC issued. Indeed, WMC disputes the very existence of any community ban and merely asserts his administrative one for which he has never provided a recognized basis (per the WP:BAN policy's authorization of discretionary sanctions under ArbCom's authority). The ban that Abd just revoked his voluntary extension of was the Heimstern ban, not the WMC ban. --GoRight (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And I believe this is wikilawyering, a) policies say "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." (so if something is not written in WP:BAN, then that does not mean that it can't be a ban), and b) please, explain me why, when I am telling an editor "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.", I am not banning this editor from vandalism. Thanks already for the explanation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied to essentially the same question here, in subsection "Bans" in Stephen Bain's section. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) @Beetstra: Call it what you want. I call it a clear reading the WP:BAN which is, I believe, intended to describe community practice in these matters. According to that policy statement, therefore, we can assume that it is community practice to only recognize administrative bans when they are issued according to the strict guidelines provided by ArbCom for discretionary sanctions. Note that WMC has NOT asserted that his administrative ban is related to any of the guidelines provided by ArbCom. Indeed, his issuance of a ban seems to have been made with no basis stated at all. He simply declared a ban, and per WP:BAN this appears to be clearly against normal community practices. --GoRight (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do call it as I want, I call this ban a final warning to stop disruptive editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)(adapted --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC))

Oppose per Beetstra, and an Arb reaffirmed the ban, which is now clearly in force. More disruption by Abd, which is as he wanted. If WMC was wrong, then Rlvese is wrong too. Verbal chat 18:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Beetstra. No need for wikilawyering here. Mathsci (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Verbal & Beestra. Since the Arb confirmed it. It sounds like someone set out the bait and got a big catch. Suggestion: No baiting allowed. :( --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Since the Arb confirmed it." - Please clarify. What has the Arb confirmed? --GoRight (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Goright, you need to list the links to the actual ban and the denial, not just WMC actions.

Beetstra, "Abd declared that this ban 'which has no recognized basis' was over" this is not only illogical, but rather orwellian/salem witch trials. If someone denies the charges against them, the charges must be true? Ikip (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley has blocked User:Abd while in a dispute with him.

4) User:William M. Connolley has blocked User:Abd while in a dispute with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Totally misrepresents that WMC was enforcing his still-standing ban, and had no content dispute with Abd or with Cold Fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - See [42]. The dispute, obviously, is over whether WMC's administrative ban is proper given that he has stated no recognized basis for it under ArbCom Enforcement. --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. They had been in dispute previously. WMC originally declared the ban immediately after Abd criticized WMC's edit of a protected page. The second block was during this arbitration case in which they are both parties. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of prior involvement is here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, this is all the evidence anyone needs,

1. #Background by arbcom User:Stephen Bain,
2. #WMC_blocking_as_involved_admin by arbcom User:FloNight, and
3. arbcom User:Rlevse's comment.[43]

If anyone cares to argue involvment they can take it up with these three arbcom members. Ikip (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Abd violated the page-ban which according to his last interchange with WMC [44] was indefinite. In the case of this page-ban, it seems that WMC was the responsible administrator. Heimstern (talk · contribs) has clearly stated that he was not the administrator enacting the ban or keeping the pages or user under scrutiny. While this case is running, Abd should not have provocatively edited the talk page nor should WMC have been the blocking administrator. Abd is now banned from cold fusion and its talk page during the case. In normal circumstances, his violation would probably have been brought before the community on ANI. I should add that it is Abd who is in dispute with WMC, since this ArbCom case is the result of Abd's reaction to a page-ban by WMC. That was an administrative action, not a dispute. Mathsci (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Abd willingly decided unilaterally that he was not banned by WMC anymore (the other ban was over, right (see here, "I think it's best to just leave it where it started, i.e., at one month.", said on the 13th of June, very over? Abd meant the ban by WMC, right?), decided that the ban was over while he actually did not acknowledge the ban (and not to notify WMC directly), performed an edit in a consise way but which apparently was at the basis of the dispute, and got blocked for it. Complicated, but yes, if one party (here: Abd) declares that he is disputing the ban applied by the other (WMC), and the other (WMC) blocks Abd, then yes, this is a block made while in dispute. No. Oppose, declaring that you are in a dispute with an admin so that he can't enact the restriction that is given is too easy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Abd willingly decided unilaterally that he was not banned by WMC anymore" - Sadly, I think that you are mistaken about what Abd has claimed to be revoking: "I voluntarily continued a ban against editing CF and its talk page, beyond the expiration of the community ban that had been closed by Heimstern.", see [45]. Abd's actions had nothing to do with WMC's claims of an administrative ban which he has rejected from the start. --GoRight (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Beestra and MathSci, and common sense. Verbal chat 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 made Scibaby a part of this case with his accusations of meat puppetry.

5) Raul654 made Scibaby a part of this case with his accusations of meat puppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Once Raul654 leveled the charge of meat puppetry at Abd, [46], and specifically named Scibaby as the puppet master he made discussions related to Scibaby in scope this case. As such a full investigation into those accusations as well as the behavior and potential personal agendas of those making the accusations bears some amount of scrutiny and due diligence. I consider the findings of fact and proposed remedies here which are related to Scibaby to therefore be in scope for this case. --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. This is far beyond the scope of this case. It is well established that Scibaby is a confirmed, disruptive, POV-Pushing socketeer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul654's pursuit of Scibaby is damaging the project.

6) Raul654's pursuit of Scibaby is damaging the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The collateral damage from Scibaby rangeblocks has been discussed on ANI and the Functionaries-l mailing list, having been brought to my attention in e-mails I received from would-be contributors who have been caught up in the blocks. To the extent necessary, there should be further discussion of this issue in appropriate venues. But I deem it beyond the scope of this arbitration case, and I am concerned that focusing on a particular banned user in a formal proposed finding like this one implicates WP:DENY concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This case is becoming a path to attack WMC and Raul654, bringing up all editors with old grudges against them. This is totally out of scope. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Raul654 has chosen to make Scibaby a key part of his proposals in this proceeding. Per my evidence here and here: Raul has issued IP range blocks that cover millions of IP addresses, preventing numerous editors and administrators from providing constructive content to the project and creating an unnecessary administrative overhead to maintain. Raul654 has inappropriately used full protection on numerous global warming pages as a tool to combat Scibaby with the result being that highly edited pages were simply frozen at some arbitrary point in time, and his state intent was for this to last "until Scibaby loses interest" (i.e. an arbitrary and unbounded amount of time ). Both of these examples demonstrate a serious lack of good judgment and common sense on Raul654's part. --GoRight (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Enric - I might ordinarily agree with you however Raul is the one that brought Scibaby into this in the first place. Now that he (Scibaby) is part of the discussion we should consider his impacts on the project as unwittingly imposed by Raul. --GoRight (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is certainly out of scope for this Arbitration. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Raul654 is not a party to this case. This case already is more than sufficiently bloated without bringing in accusations against non-parties. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Preposterous, bordering on disruptive, and, of course, factually wrong. Also agree with Boris and Enric. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Silly, this totally neglects why Raul654 is in that persuit. One step further and you say that admins involved in this case are seriously damaging Wikipedia with their persuit of Grawp (Oh please, please, WMC, tell me that you never blocked one of those socks, or even, used rollback on them!). Further, I agree with Enric, Boris, TenOfAllTrades and Stephan Schulz. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Experienced admins believe that Raul's response is entirely out of proportion, and he has always been loath to take this advice. No other sock vandal, no matter how destructive, has caused 1 million IP addresses to be range blocked. This is not a proportional or reasonable response. Raul claims that he will stop, but if he does not, I'm certain that this issue will be revisited. Cool Hand Luke 16:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there were 330 confirmed socks, and another 120 or so suspected. And that does not include untagged ones, nor the 3-4 that became active since yesterday. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Weigh the actual damage of these socks compared to blocking a million IPs—which evidently caused daily OTRS requests to request account setups. Other potential editors undoubtedly gave up rather than figure out how to jump through the hoops. Wikipedia should not cut off its nose to spite its face.

At any rate, he has said he'll stop, and I hope that he does. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Weigh the actual damage" - no, we need to weight the damage the socks would do if not controlled some way. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I replied here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked how many /16's there are blocked? And by who? Do you have any clue how many IP this blocks (now we are talking millions!). And you call that damaging. The last roughly 300.000 IP addresses of Scibaby were not blocked by Raul654. Get over it, Scibaby is a problem. Scibaby is damaging the project, not the admins that blocked these last roughly 300.000 IPs, nor Raul654 for a couple of million others. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that all of those ranges, blocked for one month by an actual uninvolved checkuser, were previously blocked for five years by Raul654? Scibaby does not cause and could not cause that level of damage. He can be reverted, but a lot of these potential contributors are not coming back. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I did not. But that does not change, that at this very moment there are millions and millions of IPs blocked. It really are a lot. All those editors behind that can't edit at this moment (for a month). I realise, that if that would be for 5 years, that effect will be bigger.

And the thing is, vandals can keep those blocks effectively there for 5 years, does not take too much effort to make use of the ranges which are unblocked in a couple of weeks until they get reblocked ... I might even think, that the solution to block the whole for 5 years, until it really stopped, and then unblock them all might be a better strategy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

He apparently has the means and access to an arbitrarily large number of ranges. Pursuing this strategy has led to increasing numbers of IPs being blocked without actually stopping the socking. Given how obvious Scibaby is when he starts editing his articles of interest, and how little damage he actually causes even with his ripened socks, the current course is almost pure collateral damage. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The community needs to have an accepted way to deal with determined sockpuppetteers. Huge long-lived rangeblocks can thwart new members. On the other hand, dealing such situations is a continual drain on established contributors -- one hopes you feel that their time and energy is of some value. There should be an exchange of ideas, though further discussion should take place elsewhere than on this Workshop page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley was involved in a content dispute with Scibaby prior to his issuing an indefinite block on that account.

7) William M. Connolley was involved in a content dispute with Scibaby prior to his issuing an indefinite block on that account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - See evidence presented here. --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. The evidence supports it. This was not "vandalism", but a content dispute with multiple editors supporting each side. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 was involved in a content dispute with Obedium prior to declaring that account a sock puppet.

8) Raul654 was involved in a content dispute with Obedium prior to declaring that account a sock puppet.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - See this conversation: [47]. Note these edits: 06:50, 16 November 2007 and 07:01, 16 November 2007. More detailed evidence to be provided on the evidence page. Raul654 declared Obedium a sockpuppet here: 06:25, 28 November 2007 --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. An editor involved in a content dispute can open a sockpuppet investigation, but checkusering and confirming sockpuppetry needs to be done by uninvolved users. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Coppertwig—if the case moves in this direction (which it doesn't seem to have), this is worth finding. Cool Hand Luke 16:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 has turned his pursuit of Scibaby into a tool of harassment and intimidation against those with whom he disagrees.

9) Raul654 has turned his pursuit of Scibaby into a tool of harassment and intimidation against those with whom he disagrees.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose This misses that Abd and GoRight were actually willing to meatpuppet for Scibaby, the same way as Abd wanted to meatpuppet for Jed, and GoRight attempted to meatpuppet for Abd just a couple days ago, see discussion in talk page. These two users seem to think that nobody should be banned ever, and do anything in their hand to bring banned users back without addressing why they were banned in the first place. Combine this with accusations of POV censorship against those that strongly oppose their meatpuppeting. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - See his accusations of meat puppetry against Abd, [48], and GoRight, [49] (closed for lack of evidence). --GoRight (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Raul654 placed under mentorship.

1) Raul654 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Raul654 shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case, the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on the appropriate issuance of IP range blocks, the appropriate use of page protection, and all matters related to Scibaby. Once an agreement on the terms is reached, Raul654 or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email. The Committee reserves the right to reject any such proposal on any grounds that they feel are justified.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See my comment above, this is bringing old grudges here. I'll have to say that it's GoRight who is needing a mentor and a short leash so he stops attacking admins who are only doing their work. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Raul654 has clearly provided service to the project and our community, however even he must be expected to learn and properly apply the principles and policies related to checkuser and sock puppetry. --GoRight (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators and clerks, can you please rein this in? The case is rambling enough without bringing in accusations and proposals against non-parties. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just asked an Arb about this to make sure, and there is nothing to say proposals concerning non-parties cannot be made. Historically such proposals have usually been made by the Committee, but if GoRight (or any other party) feels that a non-party's involvement in the matter is still significant enough to contribute to the problems surrounding this case, he is allowed to do so. If ArbCom feels such proposals are inappropriate or outside the scope of this page, they simply won't be brought to the PD or voted on. However, I would remind everyone of the title of this case (which mentions neither Scibaby nor Raul654), and point out that such proposals should be well supported by evidence that not only shows such proposals are necessary for the good of the project, but also that they relate to what this case is supposed to be about. On a side note, the Proposed Decision/Voting phase should be starting soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a clearly disruptive proposal that serves no purpose but to derail and delay this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per my Silly (vide supra). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Dirk's Silly. Mathsci (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense This being allowed to stand shows exactly why the case has become a farce Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given the resistance Raul654 has to taking any advice about Scibaby, I'm not sure if a mentor could reign him in. A better solution would be to simply prevent him from issuing global-warming related range blocks. Hopefully, he stops under has own volition as he's recently promised. Cool Hand Luke 16:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious why you specify "global-warming related" rangeblocks. Would similar rangeblocks for other topics be OK? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:INVOLVED. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression that we chose arbiters in part, at least, because they could communicate clearly. Personally I find responding to reasonable questions with Wiki short cuts instead of, you know, actually responding in English really disrespectful. I'm sure that's not you intended CHL but it comes across as really disdainful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what you mean about unexplained shortcut replies. I'll keep it in mind. Cool Hand Luke 01:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice. But more to the point, would you please explain what you meant by this unexplained shortcut? Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, per his prior editing involvement and clearly stated objectives to prevent users of minority POVs from editing these articles is involved in the topic and especially Scibaby, who he was once involved with in editing disputes. As such, he should not use admin functions in this area. Cool Hand Luke 16:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Frivolous or vexatious comes to mind. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Stifle. Many people have acknowledged problems with the behaviour(s) this remedy addresses. The symmetry of presentation appears to me to be a sincere call to judge everyone by the same standards. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 indefinitely enjoined.

2) Raul654 is indefinitely enjoined from issuing IP range blocks of any sort and from full protecting global warming related pages, to be construed broadly. If Raul654 believes that either of these actions are required he is required to find an uninvolved administrator who is willing to perform the action. Enforcement to be by blocks of escalating duration for repeated violations. Blocks may be made without warning as Raul654 should be fully aware of the consequences of such actions. Any violation may be reversed at the discretion of any administrator, or checkuser, as appropriate. All violations and subsequent reversals to be logged on the case page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Since some of the discussion on the previous remedy felt that it may prove insufficient, I propose this as an alternative which should enable Raul654 to continue providing appropriate administrative support to the project while constraining his excesses in these areas. --GoRight (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This might be a sensible finding, but so far arbitrators have not moved the case in this direction. Raul654 has curtailed his Scibaby work in recent weeks, so this is hopefully resolved. Cool Hand Luke 16:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I am merely fleshing out the proposals so that they are self-contained. If the arbiters do not see fit to adopt these at this time that is perfectly within their purview. Having things fleshed out here will aid in any future actions should they become necessary. I don't intend these additional proposals to be disruptive, merely complete and available for future reference. --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're doing, and I think it's fine to lay them out. Since this seems to largely be a case about the concept involvement, I think it would be a good idea to explain this matter further (involvement of advanced tools like checkuser is an important and unresolved question). They just haven't taken an interest so far—probably because they hope the issue is resolved. Cool Hand Luke 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal by User:Objectivist

1) Sources for the Cold Fusion article should explicitly follow the WP:Verify guidelines and not be required to follow the WP:RS guidelines, until such time (if ever) that the subject matter becomes "mainstream science".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Reliable source guidelines are even more important with controversial articles. The problems I see are that reliable sources, including peer-reviewed secondary sources that are seen as favorable to cold fusion, are excluded, while lower-quality reliable sources (such as regurgitated media comments, twenty-year-old news repeated without checking to see if it is still true, or shallow off-hand remarks in tertiary source) are allowed. I do believe that sometimes we can allow material that is from primary sources, but only with consensus, and never in violation of WP:V. The problems at Cold fusion arise from failure to seek consensus, and from blocking, banning, or simply steadily reverting editors and experts who are familiar with the field. Kirk shanahan may have been offended if his seriously POV edits were reverted, but he was always allowed, and welcomed in discussion, at least by me, and it seems by Pcarbonn as well, though he's been confronted when he has been less than clear. Cold fusion writers and researchers have been blocked and banned, from even participating in Talk. It's imbalanced. Making special exceptions for cold fusion is a Bad Idea. We need the opposite. --Abd (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Another view. Perhaps V is referring to insistence on peer-reviewed secondary or academic sources, which isn't required for non-science articles. This may be a misunderstanding. An article like Cold fusion covers not only science, but history, and lower-quality sources are allowed for the history part. But we still need coverage in some kind of RS to establish notability. There is a paradox here. Cold fusion is not pseudoscience, in spite of what some have asserted here, the consensus on that is established. However, if it were, wouldn't it then be contradictory to require the highest quality sources? My view is that if a fact is found in sources meeting RS guidelines, even if it is claimed to be of "low quality," it belongs in the project, somewhere. It may require attribution and framing and so forth, but as soon as we start excluding material because it's "fringe" or "pseudoscience," we start excluding notable facts. The fact isn't the claim that is found in the source, per se, it's that the source exists! What a sufficient number of people believe, as an example, is a proper object of knowledge. --Abd (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose We already have WP:FRINGE for this. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed The intent is to remove the primary cause of most of the argumentation, and, therefore, one cause of long postings by anyone, not just Abd. V (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is well outside the case's scope, but even if not, WP:V and WP:RS are intrinsically connected. After all, according to WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (Emphasis mine). - Bilby (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It is the argumentation about what qualifies as "reliable source" that has been the biggest problem on the CF Talk page. For another example of "fringe science", and one that has almost no Standard Reliable Sources associated with it, in terms of the Scientific Community, see the Dean drive article. Why, then, does that article exist? It can only be through some sort of relaxation of WP:RS standards. Verifiability, that data about it was published somewhere, sufficed. V (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this case isn't to look at the cold fusion article, as such, but Abd's and WMCs behaviour. Thus I see this as an unconnected issue. That said, your statement above, "It is the argumentation about what qualifies as 'reliable source' that has been the biggest problem on the CF Talk page." suggests determining standards for what consitutes a reliable source, which, of course, is what WP:RS and WP:RSN do. It's not necessary (and not possible) to drop WP:RS from WP:V. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

And this Section is for proposed solutions to those behavior problems. I reiterate that the Fundamental Cause of that behavior (of Abd, at least) is the excessive demand by others for WP:RS when so much of the data about this subject is not available from those sources. So, if that Cause is removed, it logically follows that improved behavior will result. V (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

If the sources aren't sufficiently reliable, then they can't be used. If the problem is that there are those placing overly strong expectations on what constitutes a reliable source, then there's WP:RSN. WP:V is a core policy - it can't be dropped or put aside, and WP:RS is a central part of that. - Bilby (talk) 07:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:IAR you are mistaken. The only problem I see with IAR is, who defines what is an "improvement" to the article? In the Cold Fusion article, some of the most recent research, even if published in a recognized RS source, is not yet allowed to be mentioned, simply because there are not yet any secondary RS references to that research, per WP:RS. V (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support A most excellent suggestion given that Cold Fusion seems to be accepted as being in the Fringe science category. This certainly would cut squarely to the heart of the problem, IMHO, and as icing for this little cake it would encourage the continued involvement of acknowledged experts such as Shanahan. Delightfully out of the box thinking, IMHO, and supported by established policy, namely WP:IAR. --GoRight (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Bilby. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Little confused here - User:V doesn't appear to have edited since early 2008. Guettarda (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I signed on as "Objectivist", but was using "V" as a signature-handle before officially signing up. If somehow I have acquired two talk pages, it wasn't a deliberate thing on my part. It was (still is?) a glitch in the user-identification software. It's plain enough that I still have the "V" as my signature-handle. V (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I found that quite confusing, too. But you seem to have been around for quite a while and have a good understanding of the topic? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 'waiting until the subject becomes mainstream science' is POV already in my view (even with the caveat ('if ever'). Just because the Flat Earth Society may push out some 'publications', no notable scientist even feels the urge to respond to, does not make it a verifiable (and thus good) source for an article. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And you have spelled out the heart of the rationale for this proposal. If the Flat Earth Society publishes something, it can be verified that it was indeed published. The article can then say, "So-and-so claims such-and-such", referencing that publication. There is no POV at all in that. The preceding phrase inside quotes is exactly true, that a claim was made. And anybody obtaining a copy of the publication can verify that the claim was made. Who cares how "reliable" that source is, regarding the accuracy of claims made? --if Wikipedia is indeed about verifiability not truth????? V (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a meeting place for fringe or pseudo scientist lovers. Therefore, due WP:WEIGHT has to be given to the different views of one theory. Just the fact of some scientist publishing something at some point, does not necessarily meet either WP:V or WP:RS Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And these sorts of things have been discussed ad nauseum on the Cold Fusion Talk page. Thank you for providing such an excellent introduction, for all here, about the heart of the problem there. Taking a cue from GoRight above, I submit that WP:IAR is the best way to solve the problem. LET the article become chock-full of claims and counterclaims, all of them properly identified as such, with verifiable references to actual publications. LET the reader be appropriately forewarned about what he or she is about to encounter there. LET the article be an experiment! Because you can be quite sure the detractors will have as much to say --and as much freedom to say it-- as the proponents. It will hardly be ONLY a meeting place for pseudo scientist lovers. V (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I don't recall ever seeing WP:BURO brought up in the arguments on the CF Talk page (I may have missed it, though). I respectfully ask all those who are "pushing for" the Rules to review it. V (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add another comment regarding the POV statement in the "Oppose" message above. It is a simple fact that much data about the topic simply does not exist in Official Reliable Source publications. At this time, then, the only way the article can completely cover the topic is if RS restrictions are lifted. I wrote "until such time as it becomes mainstream" because I know that if the subject ever does enter the mainstream, then at that time there will exist lots of up-to-date RS material. Thus there would no longer be any need to reference "lesser" sources, to have a complete article on the subject. V (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The RS page says it pretty well: "Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below)." Olorinish (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Unhelpful proposal. Mathsci (talk) 23:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I challenge you to back that statement up with evidence --or at least a rationale. V (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Shanahan said it all. Like Abd, you are trying to make wikipedia represent cold fusion as "emerging science" and adopt the point of view of fanatics. There's very little that is rational about that. Mathsci (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hear-say is not evidence (although it might include a rationale). Kirk is wrong about me. I think the topic is fascinating, and would like others to BE ABLE to more easily see the data. That's all. I'm simply against censorship. That means I welcome anti-CF data in the article, the same as I welcome pro-CF data in the article. Let the reader decide what to think about it all! Meanwhile, Abd (somewhat above) has partially pointed out a conundrum: An editor who thinks CF is junk science should NOT require RS, while an editor who thinks CF is valid SHOULD require RS. It's a hypocrisy thing, revealed when actions are inconsistent with words.

Also, there is a little matter regarding "notability" of sources: Would you care to explain how some Source that has basically ignored the CF field for 15+ years can be "notable" about it? I suspect "ignoramus" would be a more accurate description! Consider some evidence offered in this video: ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nNRB0K_dw0 ) The same Robert Duncan who was in the "60 Minutes" episode mentions that not long after the show was aired, he received a phone call from some "notable" person who accused him of becoming a charlatan (or something like that). Duncan was unable to talk to him about merely looking at some of the evidence. Duncan saw lots of evidence and became a CF proponent. Abd was originally neutral, saw lots of evidence, and became a CF proponent. Me, I've seen a fair amount of evidence, and LIKE THE IDEA, somewhat want it to be true, but cannot consider myself a True Believer. I've played with and liked a great many wildly different ideas over the decades, and simply know better than to quickly jump to Believer status (most of those ideas were duds, see?). Anyway, the Really Notable Sources, people who have been conducting experiments, have mostly unable to present their data in places that Wikipedia considers RS, thanks to those so-called "notables" who thought that the data gathered 20 years ago was sufficiently thorough, and have become ignoramuses on the subject since. There is a paradigm about Science making progress only after enough old fogeys die. One of my wild ideas is to think about the science-politics fallout that will happen, should CF be proved real. To Those Who Think They Know, Remember: "It ain't what you don't know that hurts so much as what you do know that ain't so." The only question is, "Which group of Knowers is right?" Maybe CF will prove to be as illusory as the canals of Mars. And maybe not. I reiterate that I want the CF article to be complete, not censored by the side-effects of "standard policy". V (talk) 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a forum or a blog, User:Objectivist. Please stop posting your private opinions here. You're wasting ArbCom's time. Mathsci (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is fact, not opinion, that people who are ignoring WP:BURO are in-effect censoring the Cold fusion article, from being up-to-date, through bureaucratic-rule-stickling source-restriction. And WP:IAR explicity is about improving an article. Who here can say that an up-to-date article is not an improvement over an out-of-date article? V (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This idea that if something is "fringe" then it is somehow exempt from the requirement that statements be cited to reliable sources, seems to be frequently and mistakenly held by those advocating for fringe theories, but it's not consistent with policy or with the goal of producing a respected encyclopedia. Woonpton (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

  Kirk Shanahan does not appear to be advocating in support of fringe theories. Quite the opposite I might expect. --GoRight (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that last remark was stated clearly enough. Kirk Shanahan's work, as a CF detractor, has not been included in the article for much the same reason that much proponent data has been excluded: inadequate RS. V (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, what you basically say is that we can include here all rubbish material that we can find, because we can't find any proper material. This completely negates previous ArbCom decisions, like Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision#No original research and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Proposed decision#Neutral point of view and sourcing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. "One man's rubbish is another man's treasure", to paraphase an old saying. Neutral POV can be maintained as easily as specifying like, "The following section presents claims that have been published, but the accuracy of each claim is disputed." And to say, "we can't find any proper material" is to distort the truth of this special situation. There is plenty of RS material dated approximately 1989-90. But there is very little after that time, because the field was rejected by the mainstream. It would not be correct to IMPLY, by preventing inclusion of non-RS material after that time, that almost nothing in the field has happened since then. Yet exactly that is being done by sticklers for the RS rules. Therefore, the only way to provide a complete and up-to-date picture of the field is to allow inclusion of non-RS material. As an example, consider the TV show "60 Minutes". They had an episode ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/17/60minutes/main4952167.shtml ) in which they contacted a professional researcher who had relevant credentials. I quote from the linked article (3rd page):

"60 Minutes turned to an independent scientist, Rob Duncan, vice chancellor of research at the University of Missouri and an expert in measuring energy.

"When we first called you and said 'We'd like you to look into cold fusion for 60 Minutes,' what did you think when you hung up the phone?" Pelley asked Duncan.

"I think my first reaction was something like, 'Well, hasn't that been debunked?'" he replied.

We asked Duncan to go with 60 Minutes to Israel, where a lab called Energetics Technologies has reported some of the biggest energy gains yet."

Anyway, is "60 Minutes" RS? Hah! Therefore it doesn't matter, per Wikipedia's Rules, that Dr. Duncan came away convinced that the original debunkers had, in essence, goofed. Nevertheless, the existence of claims made in the TV show can be verified/watched by anyone ( http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4955212n ). Who here can say precisely WHY the Rules should not be bent, for this unique subject/situation, so that readers can be brought up-to-date? V (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the program is RS. There is also a transcript CBS News has published. V, we don't need a change to the rules, we need the rules to be enforced, and your argument may simply be functioning to convince some readers that there is serious POV-pushing going on. It's not peer-reviewed RS, to be sure, but it's absolutely fine for the history. We can and should report it.--Abd (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, enforcing, that is where the problem started, Abd. CBS is a reliable source in one way, it is reliably sourcing that some people do something, or that something has happened. It is not a reliable source for saying 'and they proved that CF was possible' (e.g.), the latter statement needs peer review (as that is based on what the subject was saying), the former does not (as that is a verifyable part of the contribution). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, one could say that few things in Science are actually "proved". Newtonian Mechanics reigned supreme for a long time, and then problems with it were discovered that had to be resolved by inventing Relativity (both Special and General) and Quantum Mechanics. What makes you think that if the CF article explicity states that "In this Source so-and-so claimed such-and such." --that the claim must be perceived to be a True Thing by the reader? To the extent that "Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth", that is the extent to which NO article needs Scientifically Accepted Reliable Source. The reader only needs to be able to verify that claims (and counterclaims!) have been made. V (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I say, Objectivist. '...that few things in Science are actually "proved"' would give us the excuse to throw out WP:RS with the bathwater. The problem is, we need reliably sourced peer reviewed data for claims and counterclaims, and the other for statements 'him and her were looking at it' (where in the latter NO assertion is made whether they claim it worked or did not work). If we are going to abide by "there is no reliable source that says that it actually worked, so we are going to take ***'s word for it" (see WP:OR and such), then no, that is NOT the way forward, but that is apparently how you want to go forward. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting my position. In no way do I imply that just because Wikipedia reports that somebody made a claim, Wikipedia is endorsing that claim. Yet YOU seem to be implying that. WHY? A report of a claim is no more than just a report of a claim. It would be extremely easy for any controversial article to have something like this in it: "Various claims have been made about this topic which are seriously disputed. Here's a list:" --and then, at the end of the list, "Here's a list of counterclaims". Now please tell me why simple verifiability isn't good enough to assemble the lists of claims/counterclaims. V (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not implying that, and yes, that latter is indeed possible. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Everyone above already said it, there are guidelines/policies that we have to follow for writing an article. We don't start changing them for one article because editors feel it's the easiest road. No, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, all of them need to be followed, maybe with this article, more strictly, not less. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There is only one editor arguing for this. Proposal that has not been seconded, folks. Might be worth discussing, but it's a bit of a red herring. I understand why V proposed it, SPAs often think this way. RS is a very important bulkwark against filling the project with non-notable fringe. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This proposal has nothing to do with "easier". The proposed road is simply the ONLY road that has ALL the relevant data on it. Not to mention that Wikipedia's policies explicitly include occasional exceptions to the usual rules, per WP:BURO and WP:IAR. It seems obvious to me that an article that completely covers the topic would be an improvement over an article that excludes lots of relevant information. But the RS does not exist, to allow the article to become complete in accordance with that rule. Therefore it is logical to make an exception. V (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, I don't understand what this is supposed to achieve. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Eegh, no - Wikipedia:Fringe theories covers how to handle sourcing on topics ignored by most scientists. Arguments that exceed the talkpage can be bumped up to RS/N or FT/N. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Bilby

Proposed principles

Page protection

(As all the evidence isn't available, I'm just proposing a couple of principles that I see as applicable to the case as I understand it, independent of further claims). - Bilby (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that everyone can edit," the vast majority of articles and other pages can be freely edited by anyone (except for blocked or banned users). While it may be necessary for an administrator to protect a page, where possible editors and administrators should pursue reasonable efforts to resolve the concerns which made protection necessary. Such efforts may involve pursuing dispute resolution, mediation, voluntary and involuntary revert restrictions, article or topic bans, and, on occasion, blocks or site bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Support. As an admin, I prefer to block users rather than protect pages William M. Connolley (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Admins can topic ban people from articles if they have caused massive disruption, and the other editors in the page have asked for this measure. Also, he can look at comments made in noticeboards and in other pages about the situation in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Including the comments from the other parties: WMC does prefer that, sometimes it is better, sometimes not, so I couldn't possibly disagree with his statement. Enric's comment is true as well, except that in reviewing comments in noticeboards, in particular, an admin should exercise caution, for noticeboard comments may reflect participation bias. Most editors don't keep the noticeboards on their watchlists, there is far too much traffic, so editors with an axe to grind may preferentially participate. Ahem. --Abd (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed - The first line of this is taken directly from the Sarah Palin protection wheel war decision, but I've added the rest. I acknowledge that full protection is a necessary evil, but I still see it as against the core philosophy of Wikipedia. Thus it seems to me that we should be endeavouring to solve the problems that led to the protection, should such be possible. I'm not saying here that WMC's actions were the right ones, though, nor that article bans should be proposed by individual administrators - they're different issues. - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• It might surprise some here, but I support the right of an uninvolved administrator to declare a page ban. However, the nature of the ban should be better understood. As a single-admin declaration, it should be considered as a warning that the admin considers the editor's general participation in that page disruptive, and if that behavior continues, the admin intends to block. An "administrative ban," in my opinion, does not create a new offense: editing a page in defiance of a single administrator. Non-disruptive edits should not result in block. A community ban is different, it may be interpreted more strictly, likewise an ArbComm ban. Exactly how much more strictly is another issue in this case, but a community ban, per WP:BAN, requires a "consensus of uninvolved editors." --Abd (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Although you may want to reword the following bit as it took me a couple of readings to figure it out: "where possible editors and administrators should pursue ...". For some reason I had a tendency to parse it as "( where possible editors and administrators ) should pursue ..." as opposed to the intended "( where possible ) editors and administrators should pursue ...". Perhaps a comma after the word "possible" would make it clearer. --GoRight (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better without the "where possible" in the first place. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. You might also consider changing "on occasion" to "on rare occasions" to emphasize that we hope such actions are not needed on a regular basis. --GoRight (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. From the reaction of the editors who regularly edit the article, I think the banning of the two editors was an excepted relief to them. I think the regular editors at the article found peace after the bannings and were able to accomplish more without the disruptions, at least that is how I read everyone after this was done. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Partly Agree. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles are noncontroversial, and certainly the above proposal applies to them. And a fair percentage of controversial pages are only temporarily so (e.g., about some person currently in the news). Relatively few are controversial all the time (abortion), and it could be that they need some special treatment. What I'd really like to see, if there was a way to implement it, is the ability for any editable section of a page to be edit-locked. That way, after some section painstakingly reaches consensus, it can be locked down, so that no casual passerby with a POV agenda can mess up the hard work that went into it. Sure, it can be reverted, but that involves the effort of constantly monitoring the section for undiscussed tweaks. I'd rather focus on consensus building for some other section. Does anyone here know who's in charge of implementing such suggestions? V (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverting during protection

2) Uninvolved administrators may choose to revert a page that has been protected due to an edit war back to a stable version that predates the dispute. Doing so should not be seen as indicating the administrator's approval of that version.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Support, though I'd disagree with the word "stable" since I think that can be hard to establish. If there is a good reason to revert back, uninvolved admins can use their good judgement to restore an earlier version (in the case involved, I used my good judgement to trust GR's good judgement). This is particularly true when protection is for a long time, or there is reason (existing protracted failure to reach agreement on the talk page) to suspect that the just-protected version may sit around. It also acts as a spur to those in the discussion. Doing so should not be seen as indicating the administrator's approval of that version is slightly problematic because the admin has to have some reason for preferring that version William M. Connolley (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support, it's annoying when it's my edits that are getting reverted, but it's the correct action. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support However, caution should be exercised. I agree with WMC that part of the problem could be "stable." (Sometimes "stability" means that the owners of the article wore out everyone else for a time, and the "edit warring" represented an attempt of consensus to re-assert itself against the owners.) However, if there is a version that all commenting editors have accepted as better than the protected version, that should be a no-brainer. Any change, however, that can be expected by the administrator to enjoy broader consensus than the existing version could be considered legitimate, and the proof would be in the pudding; if objection arises, maybe it wasn't a good decision. A neutral administrator, neutral as to the article and the involved parties, would presumably be responsive, and support consensus as it emerges. Administrators, however, should not be making content judgments, they should only serve consensus (beyond BLP and copyright policy). --Abd (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed - The initial sentence is a rewording of what is at Wikipedia:Protection policy, with the addition of "uninvolved". The second part is new, and may need a better writer, but it seems to me that an otherwise uninvolved administrator acting to revert to a stable version shouldn't necessarily be seen as part of the content dispute. It's here because the claim is that WMC was involved because of a prior personal dispute with Abd and because of a content dispute with Abd due to WMC's revert of the page. Reverting as described at WP:PP shouldn't be seen to entail the latter. - Bilby (talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have a tendency to support this because I have seen many cases where an uninvolved administrator simply comes in and protects a page to stop an edit war but leaves the page in whatever state it was at the time of the protection. In most cases this guarantees that the page is in a controversial state, so reverting to a prior stable state clearly seems preferable. Indeed, this is also essentially what I had tried to propose in this case. On the other hand, I think Abd also makes a fair argument that if consensus on a more current version of the page can be quickly found via a poll or other discussion that such a choice would be even more preferable as it would preserve as much work as possible. I think that we should all be in agreement that leaving a protected page in a controversial state should be avoided, and in that sense WMC was right to act in some fashion in this case. --GoRight (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not so sure of this personally because admins are supposed to always lock at the wrong version and wait for a consensus to develop before changing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page

• The protection policy is explicit, changes to protected pages need a consensus on the talk page and should not be touched unless the consensus is there. The only exception I could think of would be a BLP vio or libellous material. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  Interesting. So by this argument you would claim that WMC violated protection policy by restoring to the version I had proposed? Obviously there was no real consensus for it, right? WMC acted so quickly that only Hipocrite had expressed support. So is that your position in this case? Could you please clarify whether that is you intended position, because on the surface that seems to be an implication of your statement? I just want to make sure that I am not misunderstanding here. --GoRight (talk) 07:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't have made the change but there is room for diversity of opinion here. Arguably WMC could have said to themselves well two sides of the dispute are endorsing this so we have a rough consensus to revert to this stable version. To be very clear though, even if this isn't the action I would have taken myself, it does not mean that I think this was an abusive admin action - simply that its the kind of action where there is room for diversity of approach. I'm relatively conservative (with a small c) as an admin and I don't tend to block users or edit locked articles lightly. Just because I agree with the proposals about Abd's behaviour doesn't mean that I (or anyone else) has common cause for everything that WMC does as an admin. I don't endorse his action in reverting the article and while I do not condemn it because there is room for different approaches, it wasn't the best admin action he has taken in my opinion. That and 50c will buy you some candy. In other words, if that's all you have against him then you are all wasting your time and ours here - but we knew that already. Gosh, wikipedia admin thinks other wikipedia admin made an ordinary decision. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The policy is a tad more complex than that, unfortunately. It also states, in relation to content disputes:

Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists. Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above).

This is where I got the first part of the proposed principle from, and it makes a lot of sense to me, fitting in well with what Abd was saying. Abd argued that Hipocrite had made modifications before the article was protected, and protecting the page rewarded Hipocrite by fixing it in Hipocrite's preferred version. So the policy allows an admin to revert to a stage prior to the edit war, thus presumably not favouring any of those involved. This is what WMC did. As the second part of the policy refers to editing, I'm assuming that the intent was to distinguish between reverting back to a prior version and making edits to the page. Making further changes would require consensus. - Bilby (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To make it clear, Hipocrite had been using bald reversions for weeks, but had also added content that wasn't reverted. He'd add content, it was sourced, though weakly, so I didn't revert it. I'd add balance, and it was reverted. Eventually, May 21, I confronted this and Hipocrite accepted part of the balancing content, himself balancing it (with weakly sourced material, but, hey, I'll take what I can get). Going back to May 14 was essentially ratifying Hipocrite's prior edit warring. May 21 and May 31 were supported by all commenting editors (except for Woonpton, who had withdrawn her comment). The polls later confirmed this, and also confirmed what I'd said to WMC after his rollback to May 14: May 14 was better than the protected version of June 1, but much less supported than either May 21 or May 31. May 14 was not a stage prior to the edit war, if edit warring isn't limited to 3RR/day violation or approaching it. I should, in my evidence, show how many reverts were involved, long-term. --Abd (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

perhaps yes. Its a grey area and my personal view that we should generally stick to the wrong version doesn't means that I think admins who do stuff diverently are wrong, evil or abusive. Its just my approach and opinion on this. I think the point raised was no clear safe revert point on this article and anyway, WMC made it clear that he did the revert for lulz rather then from a careful consideration of the situation. Then again, its such a tiny minor point anyway in the wider sense of the disruption of the the article that it should be a question of who the hell cares except Abd anyway? (by the way did you know your handle means car town in Danish?) Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My only concern is to be clear that reverting along the lines described is not evidence of involvement in a content dispute, in and of itself. Otherwise anyone reverting to a pre-edit war state is determined to be "involved" for any subsequent actions. (The "car town" is cool - in Australia it refers to a medium sized marsupial that looks a bit like a rabbit only with a nasty temperament and teeth. They bring easter eggs for those who don't like rabbits).- Bilby (talk) 08:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Enric Naval

Proposed principles

Administrators blocks can be brought up for review by any editor

1) Any editor can bring an administrator block up for review in the relevant noticeboard if he sees a problem with it. Idem for bans from pages. The community can, among other things, lift the block/ban, endorse it or extend it in time and/or scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Abd was saying that asking ANI to review his ban was disruptive. I later said that, if Arbcom rejected this case, then I would bring it to ANI again. Abd said that I was menacing with more disruption[50]. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposed. It's not that an editor can't bring up a block or ban at a noticeboard, but that a statement on this by ArbComm would tend to establish a highly questionable procedure, intended for emergency use, or certain other uses, as routine. The noticeboards are not part of dispute resolution process, for good reason. Any administrator may block an editor for abusive edits. I was on warning that one administrator, WMC, considered my edits to Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion to be disruptive. (See another discussion here about "administrative bans," that they are warnings and they do not establish a right to block if that right does not independently exist.) So if I defied WMC's ban with an edit, either it would be disruptive or not. If it was disruptive, he could block me on that basis, the ban isn't necessary. If not disruptive, then he could still block me, but it would be improper, it would be punishment for defying him. Not a prevention of harm to the project. There was no dispute needing escalation yet. Had he insisted and blocked me, I'd have followed DR, not the noticeboard, and possibly directly to ArbComm, depending. For a highly involved editor, Enric Naval, to take this to AN/I to "avoid disruption," was, indeed, disruptive, and the proof of it is in that discussion and in what has ensued, including this entire proceeding. Had I chosen to contest the ban there, it would have become much more disruptive. Editors are relatively restrained, here, before ArbComm. Imagine all this at AN/I. --Abd (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiment, though I think it is obvious, so may not be worth saying. Note that you said, and I agree with, if he sees a problem with it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reject. I believe a general Wikipedian principle is that on the one hand, usually anyone can start a discussion about anything at any time, but on the other hand, starting a discussion takes up the time of other editors and should only be done if there is a good reason sufficient to justify the time taken up. Starting discussions can be considered disruptive if there isn't sufficient reason. I do not disagree with the statement, but I believe that passing it as an arbcom principle would give it too much weight; it has to be balanced in relation to other principles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment This seems to be exactly how wikipedia functions at the moment. Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes, too often. However, AN or AN/I are not part of Dispute resolution policy? Should we revise them? I think not. --Abd (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI or AN are where bans are usually reviewed. I don't see what this has to do with dispute resolution. Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Endorse Blocks and bans are not dispute resolution but enforcement of policy and community norms. I find it incredible that people are arguing that blocks and bans can't be raised at AN or ANI. That's undermining the whole basis on whichwe hold admionistrator's accoundable for their actions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have certainly not claimed that "blocks and bans can't be raised at AN or ANI." However, consider what Spartaz has said, he seems to think that our process for holding administrators accountable is at risk. That wasn't the issue here, nobody went to ANI to attempt to "hold an administrator accountable." Rather, someone aligned with the admin, part of a cabal of editors supporting a particular approach to articles and that admin, went to ANI to "avoid disruption" by causing it, by obtaining a "community consensus" for a ban. If an editor is threatened with a block by an admin, which is what this amounted to, the editor may appeal that immediately to ANI, yes, and I could have chosen that. However, I knew the cabal was involved; previously, at RfC/JzG 3, 25 editors called for me to be banned. --Abd (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Extended argument by Abd, reviewing this issue with respect to this case, is here: [51] (collapse box replaced by diff link ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support People who abuse the community's patience with such reviews get few comments and little support for their position, reinforcing the stability of the system. Should be worded without reference to genger, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

The community found no problem with WMC's blocks when they were brought up for review

1) Some blocks made by WMC were found worrysome by some editors, and those editors brought the blocks to the community for review. The community found no problem with them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Based in my evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)::

• Agree, oddly enough William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Quite simply, cherry-picked, and "the community found no problem with them" is a highly biased statement. Some members of the community have found problems with WMC's blocks, and some support them, and there is no general consensus on this, to my knowledge. Further, WMC has issued many blocks. Some of them were, we can argue, legitimate, but still, for various reasons, someone objected. So the above comment could apply to any administrator, even one who is highly abusive. However, are there other blocks that are worrisome?. I've refrained, so far, from scouring the block log, but I'll note that ArbComm reviewed one block in detail, with RfAr/Georgre-William M. Connolley and found that WMC had violated recusal policy (by extending a block based on incivility against WMC) and had edit wheel warred by reblocking after another admin lifted the block. ArbComm represents the community, in fact. So the header on this proposal is clearly false. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Added link and changed edit warred to wheel warred ... per request from Enric Naval on my Talk. --Abd (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hum, Arbcom doesn't represent the community, it's a panel of experienced editors chosen by the community to solve disputes as the last step of WP:DR, I couldn't find any representation task in either Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy, Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide or meta:Arbitration Committee.

If you give the link to the specific case, I can make a separate finding where it says that Arbcom found a problem with a specific block made by WMC (and I will even add another case on top of that one), but I'll also point out the cases where Arbcom didn't find a problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any, Enric? This is all off the point. WMC might have made his very first mistake in this case, and it being first would only affect the remedy, not the FoF. (But this isn't his first failure to recuse.) As to ArbComm representing the community, it represents it precisely under the conditions described. Decisions in lower-level processes are less representative, precisely because they don't allow "representation" at all. The editors participating are self-selected, they are not "the community," but what they do is taken to represent the community as well, in a process that only accomplishes a form of representation when averaged over many such decisions. Participation at the noticeboards is spotty, RfCs are open longer and it gets better, but cabal participation can warp the appearance of an RfC, only with ArbComm is there a body chosen by the community to examine such actions deliberatively and with a clear decision-making mechanism. --Abd (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Clarification. Most editors commenting seem confused about this FoF, which is not about about WMC's ban of me, or his later block, but about prior blocks of other editors. --Abd (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Finding. I have examined the discussion at AN/I re the block of A.K. Nole, the first example Enric gives in his evidence, for his claim in this proposal. Enric's description of that report in his evidence is deceptive. In fact, the majority of editors commenting in that report were concerned about the block, my rough count is 21:17. 5 of the editors apparently supporting the block are listed in the cabal list in my evidence, none of those concerned about it are listed there. (This polarization is typical.) If we count these five as one, and also count, as one, four editors who were concerned (including myself, A.K Nole, and two others with substantial disputes with WMC which I recognized), it becomes 18:13 (58% concerned). To claim that there was a consensus that the block was endorsed in that report is preposterous. Rather, as usual, the lengthy discussion went nowhere. --Abd (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I commented several times there, but -- damn! -- my Wall-o-Text^TM generator seems to have been on the blink.

Comment by others:

• Support. I know it was for the block/ban of Cold fusion which is what I am supporting this about. It was brought to ANI and there was a lot of support for it until it was stopped by Abd. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. There was a general feeling of relief at t:CF, and widespread support on WP:ANI. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Raul654 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
• Reject - As has already been noted by others the ANI discussion on the ban was cut short due to Abd's request and desire to avoid unnecessary community disruption. Given this any claims of there being an established consensus there are exaggerated at best. Also, the need to even hold that discussion is questionable given that Abd had not taken any actionable steps with respect to the ban at that time. In that sense the discussion itself was unnecessarily disruptive as well as provocative. Luckily Abd did not take the bait and his good judgment in that instance cut the whole thing short (which is consistent with his prior feedback from ArbCom). --GoRight (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. Abd was strongly criticized and the ban supported by a large number of editors, several of which were uninvolved by any reasonable definition of "involved". Claiming "well, I asked for it to be shut down just before all my supported chimed it" is a childishly transparent tactic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the observation "several of which were uninvolved" in the same sentence where you assert "the ban [was] supported by a large number of editors" puts the whole thing in an appropriate context. Regarding "just before all my [support] chimed [in]" please note that while I commented in that discussion I had not !voted because the whole thing was disruptive and unnecessary. Perhaps others felt similarly? --GoRight (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's analysis doesn't quite agree with mine.--Abd (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd's analysis of the AN/I community ban discussion and his No Contest close is here: [52] (Link to summary and original comment ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

"GoRight's analysis doesn't quite agree with mine." - Yet another example of how I do NOT speak for Abd, nor do I try to. He is perfectly able to speak his own mind on such matters. --GoRight (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reject I'm pretty sure I never made any comments one way or the other, at the time WMC blocked Abd and Hippocrite. I hadn't been following the relevant pages very closely at the time, to have noticed much in the way of an edit war in the article. There was certainly significant arguing going on in the Talk page, but I had other things to do than spend a lot of time studying it. Therefore I can and do reject the notion that I might have been part of any "community support" for a block, after it happened. Absence of complaint is not automatically support. I like to think I'm a fairly tolerant person; arguments don't bother me much. I didn't like the block but I did see it was supposed to only last a month. OK, so that ought to be plenty of time (maybe even excessive time) for arguers to cool off. I'm not so expert at WikipediaPolitics that I know all the sorts of standard clamp-downs there might be, regarding arguments and edit wars. Later on, though, I found out that Abd thinks WMC is out to persecute him. Is it true? I don't know. I do know that this page here has all the earmarks of an attempt to permanently censor someone who has put a lot of effort into gathering a lot of information associated with the topic of Cold Fusion, and if unimpeded could be expected to do more of that in the future. I therefore must speak up against such censorship! In my book censorship is a "hate crime" (if anyone here can argue that to the contrary, I'd like to see it!), and psychologists say hatred is always caused by fear. What are the would-be censors afraid of, in this particular case? That so much evidence might be gathered, against their chosen position regarding a small corner of Science, that they might turn out to be wrong? Tough! The correct counter to evidence that supports one position involves such things as finding holes in that evidence (key witness: Kirk Shanahan), or finding evidence that supports the opposing position. Not censorship. V (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• With respect you are no more the community then I am I if the action or block is put up at ANI and broadly supported then the community is deemed to have endorsed the particular action. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ummmm...what does "ANI" (or "AN/I") stand for? ---OK, Don't answer that; I just noticed a link right below this! Heh! V (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support The fact that Abd himself requested closure of the WP:ANI discussion on the ban as it was WP:SNOWballing against him speaks volumes. (And the fact that Abd then complained that a discussion that he asked to close early did not garner adequate participation is the height of... something.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  "And the fact that Abd then complained that a discussion that he asked to close early did not garner adequate participation is the height of... something." - I think you must have Abd confused with someone else. Has he even responded to this? --GoRight (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  Yes GoRight, Abd did respond to this, he called all of us a member of some kind of cabal. I couldn't be the uninvolved editor I said I am because? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  "Abd did respond to this" - I was actually referring to this specific FOF, to which Abd does not appear to have responded even now. --GoRight (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Much comment here -- most, actually, so far -- is a good example of how the cabal mentality works, with knee-jerk supports and oppositions. My "block" wasn't reviewed at AN/I, I hadn't been blocked, and when I was blocked, I did not ask for review, I put up no unblock template, because it was only for 24 hours and I already knew I was headed for ArbComm. This proposal doesn't mention bans, just blocks. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I have now responded to this FoF

• Support There was an unequivocal response when Enric Naval brought the matter up at WP:ANI. Abd abruptly requested the termination of the ANI thread when it was not going the way he wanted. Mathsci (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  "when it was not going the way he wanted." - Abd has clearly stated his reasons for requesting the close. This does not appear to be among them. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Not everything Abd writes or claims is correct. His statements about a cabal for example seem to be pure fantasy. His statements about mathematics have been goobledegook. In this ArbCom case his edits seem to be "spinning" things to place himself in the best possible light post facto. Mathsci (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pure fantasy is useless, but gobbledegook we might be able to serve for Thanksgiving dinner. Mathsci, can you point to some "gobbledegook" statement I've made about math? I can't recall it, yet I have no trouble with "'Twas brillig and the slithy toves...." --Abd (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Your off-topic remarks about mathematics were commented upon on the discussion page some time ago. Please look there. Mathsci (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That must be here. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support but change it to administrative actions to cover banning and reverting while uninvolved (at least, to my recollection those were both community endorsed). Yes, I participated in some of these discussions. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Another key point - the community reviewed the actions of WMC in this case multiple times and supported them. Despite Abd having brought this issue to various places he never received support for his claim of involvement or improper actions by WMC. Shell ^babelfish 00:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support per Shell and SBHB. Verbal chat 18:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Abd's comments about the WP:ANI A.K.Nole thread are another red herring. His summary is inaccurate. His intervention there was the first example of his personal attacks on me as a mathematical editor. In that thread, which is irrelevant to this case, two uninvolved ex-arbs User:YellowMonkey and User:Charles Matthews and a host of senior administrators confirmed the problematic editing patterns of A.K.Nole, contradicting Abd's claims. Abd seems to have chosen today to disrupt this ArbCom case in new ways. He has edited Talk:Cold fusion and been blocked for a second time by WMC. Mathsci (talk) 10:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely false, strong oppose

see my evidence here: William M. Connolley has a rich_history of administrative abuse

Eight administrators have chastized William M Connolley's administrative block abuse more than any other administrator that I am aware of.

For example, in February, another block was reversed, see: More abusive blocks by Connolley: the February 2009_Benjiboi case

An editor wrote: "User:William M. Connolley is one of the admins who gets frequently mentioned on Wikipedia Review for bad blocks, so this one is no surprise." and the admin who reversed the abusive block: "Oh - that's bad form, William M Connolley. Really bad form."

This is just one of over 40 bad blocks, the most recent a few weeks ago.

Mathsci, the Connolley block that you benefited from was opposed by several editors, many who brought up the abusive history of Connolley, see Very recent abusive blocks by Connolley excerpts of what the eight editors said about the block:

"somewhat disturbing",

"a bad block on its merits",

[I have a] "negative view of admin actions by WMC",

"I'm also having trouble understanding the reason for this block. After reading over Talk:Butcher group, I was actually much more disturbed by Mathsci's behavior and comments than A.K. Nole's",

"trolling is not a desirable block rationale,"

"there could to be a pattern of WMC blocking editors for (mis)use of talk pages",

"I don't feel that WMC is an objective Admin. He has been condescending to all the editors",

"Ahh right, I forget - being knowledgeable about the subject area is a get-out-of-jail free card. The question I want to ask - where is the trolling? It seems to be being used as a catch-all block reason to get someone annoying out of peoples hair, which isn't really acceptable."

This is simply one of his most recent abusive blocks. Very recent abusive blocks by Connolley

Therefore the statement: "The community found no problem with them" does not stand up to the littlest bit of scrutiny, and should be reworded to reflect reality. Ikip (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support. WMC is regard as expert in 3RR and does a vast share of dealing with bad faith editors and SPA editors. He is also prepared to take on other admins when they have lost the plot, which is very unusual, and "call a spade a spade". His "hit rate" in terms of the number of blocks which other people complain about is low and my own experience (e.g. when he overturned one of my blocks for giving the wrong block summary) is that he is completely fair and widely recognized as such. --BozMo talk 19:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd has disrupted the writing of the article via his edits in the talk page

Abd has disrupted the process of improvement of the article via his edits in the talk page. He has dismissed multiple RS that didn't agree with his POV and by neglecting to reply to repeated requests to consider the RS instead of resorting to original research [53]]. Abd has stonewalled the insertion of sources contrary to his POV by flooding the discussions with long comments full of original research and off-topic commentaries that didn't address the reliability of the sources at hand [54]. Abd has removed or softened sourced negative statements from the article and edit warred with other editors over negative content in the period between mid-April and 1st June [55]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Got the idea from Tony's viewpoint at the talk page. These incidents had already been going around my head for a long time, and I had been studying them one by one over time as I recalled them in random discussion about/with Abd, so now I was able to put them together quickly. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Agreed, beyond the point where WP:SHUN would be useful. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seems like an accurate description of Abd's editing behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support and agree with 2/0 Verbal chat 18:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Coppertwig

Proposed principles

Bans should be clear

1) In order to avoid contributing to long-term disruption, administrators should strive to^{(13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC))} avoid creating situations where it's unclear whether an editor is banned or not, and bans should be carried out with a reasonable effort to give the banned editor the impression that they have been treated fairly, properly, civilly and respectfully. This applies to all types of bans: page-bans, topic-bans, project-bans etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal does not apply to this case. Abd knew perfectly why he was being banned, because the other editors on the page had been telling him for months. WMC's ban was endorsed by the community, and no one in the ban review had a problem with WMC's announcement of the ban apart from Abd and GoRight. It's also clear that Jed is banned, and it's also only Abd and GoRight wikilawyering about it (maybe with a bit of support from Coppertwig, who should find something better to do than taking clues from them). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the case, since the ban was perfectly clear [56] although it required repeating for the hard of understanding [57] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Very relevant to this case. WMC did not state a cause with the ban. Sure, I could, and did, infer one, but it isn't exactly what Enric claims, and that a small set of contentious and involved editors, generally acting in defiance of Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, complain about my behavior does not establish my behavior as violating any guideline. Editors and the community have a right to know the basis for a ban (or block). If it is general, then a general statement. If specific, then a specific statement. WMC made no statement, to me. And when asked, he pointed to WP:TRIFECTA, then, later, denied that he was invoking WP:IAR but was only deflecting trolling. The proposed principle is clear and really should not be controversial. By the way, Coppertwig is a highly experienced editor, a bureaucrat on another WMF project. --Abd (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is not intended as an excuse for (arguably) banned editors, but as a guideline for administrators, to help keep disruption to a minimum. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem useful as a general wikipedia principal. The problem is usually with the disruptive editor, not the random administrator who deals with him/her. Mathsci (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Could you explain why you don't see it as useful? Disruptive editors create problems. Administrative actions which appear to be unfair tend to cause editors to be more likely to be disruptive (e.g. creating lots of sockpuppets to combat what they see as unfairness); also, unclear bans can lead to time wasted in discussion as to whether there is a ban or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As applied to Abd. WMC and other editors involved here, I think that what you have written is unhelpful and shows a biassed understanding of what has happened. I hope this clarifies things. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So is it your position that bans should actually be left unclear and ill-defined and thus almost guarantee future disruption? I don't want to put wards in your mouth so please clarify further --GoRight (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What was unclear about a page-ban in this case? It was clear to Hipocrite. Only Abd filled multiple pages with his wikilawyering and threats of an ArbCom case as soon as WMC took any action. Abd's evasive, lengthy and often irrelevant statements would make any kind of discussion unworkable. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"What was unclear about a page-ban in this case?" - Have you not been following along? It is unclear whether WMC was involved personally with Abd prior to his taking administrative action. It is unclear whether a individual administrator has the authority to create such bans sans and specific community discussion on the point. It is unclear whether WMC has the ongoing authority to continue to assert the ban beyond the community "sanctioned" one month discussed at AN/I. Shall I continue?

But none of that was actually my point. I was responding to the generic principle involved, not the specifics of this case. The Rothwell case would be a better example of why this principle is important, but even in this specific case it certainly has applicability as I highlight above.

So, given your comments above, I am left wondering whether you support (generically speaking) "having bans be clear", or not. And if not, then what exactly do you support in this respect? I don't want to assume anything here, so I am simply asking you what you support and what you don't w.r.t. the "clarity of bans". Depending on your position I might be moved to either support or reject this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal says, in essence, that administrators have convince disruptive editors to the disruptive editors' satisfaction that they have been treated fairly. That is insanity. Raul654 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the point being made here, and correct me if I am wrong here C, is that if someone is banned it should be crystal clear that they are banned, and if not then that should be equally clear. The Rothwell case is a good case in point. He is merely blocked indefinitely by MastCell and we have no way to determine whether some other administrator is willing to unblock, sans a disruptive community discussion. You would argue that Rothwell is banned. I and others obviously disagree. Wouldn't things be improved if his status were made clear and thus we could all agree? --GoRight (talk) 04:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Raul654. Apparently I didn't word the proposal clearly enough to get my meaning across. I'm not proposing that bans have to be understood by the banned editor or that anything has to be done to the banned editor's satisfaction. I put in the words "reasonable effort" to try to get that across. We can't force editors to accept that they ought to have been banned. However, we can act in such a way that most people, or almost all reasonable people, would agree that a reasonably proper decision has been made; this gives the banned editor a reasonable chance to see that they've been treated fairly. I don't mean that almost everybody would have to support the ban, but that they would accept that it wasn't improper, the way people accept that a page was properly deleted after an AfD in which they might have voted "keep". I'm inserting "strive to" into the first sentence. Is it clear enough now? Would it help if I change "give the banned editor the impression" to "treat the banned editor in such a way that a reasonable person so treated would have the impression"? I think that expresses better what I mean but is wordier. GoRight, that's roughly correct. Ideally it will be crystal clear to everyone; that's what to strive for, if it can be achieved without too much effort. At least, it should be clear to all or almost all uninvolved established editors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean that almost everybody would have to support the ban, but that they would accept that it wasn't improper, the way people accept that a page was properly deleted after an AfD in which they might have voted "keep". I'm inserting "strive to" into the first sentence. - given the behavior on display in this arbcom proceeding, where certain users are employing a "see no evil" mentality to oppose all principles, FOFs, and remedies dealing with certain disruptive users, I think requiring everybody to "accept [that a remedy for disruptive behavior] wasn't improper" is a recipe for in-action where disruptive users are concerned. Raul654 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, this is intended as advice for administrators, not as an excuse for banned users. Note that Abd respected the ban even while he was challenging it, editing only with a reply to the ban notice, acknowledging the ban, and the famous one-character self-reverted edit which he had thought was acceptable for banned editors. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, this is intended as advice for administrators, not as an excuse for banned users. - that may be how you intend it, but that's most certainly not how I expect certain users to apply it. I expect a natural consequence of the arbcom adopting this as a principle would be to see certain users complaining that admin-imposed sanctions are not legitimate for any number of creative reasons.

Note that Abd respected the ban.. and the famous one-character self-reverted edit which he had thought was acceptable for banned editors. - so Abd was respecting the ban, even while he was willfully violating it? That's ridiculous. Abd willfully and knowingly conducted a breaching experiment, and he was punished for doing so. Wikipedia is not a forum for conducting experiments in social psychology. Abd should be grateful that the block was as short as it was, because willful defiance of community restrictions should not be punished lightly. Raul654 (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe you have it wrong: I'm convinced that Abd was not conducting an experiment, nor being defiant, nor carrying out civil disobedience in that edit. Anyone can ask him if they want to know his thoughts leading up to the edit and his intentions. Yes, he is interested in experiments at times (as are many people) but that was not one of those times. He was simply trying to improve the encyclopedia by helpfully trying to fix a ref link, in a way that he believed was approved by the community and would be minimally disruptive under the circumstances. To block someone in such circumstances is highly counterproductive. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced that Abd was not conducting an experiment, nor being defiant, nor carrying out civil disobedience in that edit. Anyone can ask him if they want to know his thoughts leading up to the edit and his intentions. - oh, he's made his position on this matter quite clear - Administrative bans are really warnings, and when an editor perceives that a warning is being issued by an administrator who is involved or has some axe to grind, the warning is likely to be disregarded. In other words, if someone you don't like bans you, you can feel free to disregard it. So, his loony interpretation of policy aside, that's willful defiance. Raul654 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Irrelevant to this case, and not useful. Verbal chat 17:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you took away the "to this" I'd say you summed up this whole arbitration perfectly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support the principle - most things should be clear - but I'm not sure how it applies here. Abd was very clear that he understood and disagreed with the terms of the ban. Perhaps you mean that WMC wasn't sufficiently clear with the "arbitrary time of approximately one month" condition, and that may be the case, but he did then clarify the language when it was raised. - Bilby (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good point but have to agree that this doesn't apply here. Abd's multiple threads on the subject and reams of discussion don't indicate that there was a lack of clarity - not agreeing with your ban is different than not understanding. Shell ^babelfish 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Respected editors need to behave accordingly

2) Administrators, long-time editors and editors who have gained the respect of others need to avoid behaving in ways that set a bad example or bring the project into disrepute. One reason is that when a respected editor does something it tends to give others the impression that it's OK. Also, establshed editors tend to be seen as representing the project and might damage its reputation, particularly in the eyes of victims of such behaviour, who might tell their friends etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This proposal, just like the one above, doesn't apply to this case since WMC's actions have been backed by the community. Coppertwig should explain what are those behaviours that set a bad example, and who made them, and how he knows that they weren't exactly what had to be done due to the presence of disruption on Talk:COld fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal seems to make no sense at all. What does "editors who have gained the respect of others" mean? Mathsci (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's not clear. Do you understand the part about administrators avoiding setting a bad example? By editors who have gained the respect of others, I mean editors whose actions tend to be supported by others because of who they are rather than just the merit of their action; i.e. whose actions are supported by others when they do things that would not be supported if someone else did it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrators are not here to set an example - they are appointed to use their buttons to help things move smoothly in producing a reliable encyclopedia. I don't agree that editors can be classified as you attempt to do. Perhaps looking at the quality/quantity of namespace edits might be one reasonable way to classify, but people do all sort of different things which are equally useful on-wiki. Fringe POV-pushing or the encouragement of it is not one of them. Mathsci (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, if you are not respected as an editor you don't have to behave? And who do you mean with the respected editor in this case? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps something a little more standard like "Administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior"? Still not sure this would be applicable to this case; there doesn't appear to be any administrative misbehavior. If you meant to say that Abd as a well established editor should know better, then perhaps something more clear? Not sure what this is meant to accomplish. Shell ^babelfish 00:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose All editors should behave all the time, yet we all have small lapses. Long or repeating lapses are a problem. Being an admin "is no big deal", etc. This doesn't seem relevant. Verbal chat 18:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• ??? I never heard of WMC before he page-blocked Abd and Hipocrite from the CF pages. How should I know he qualifies as "respected"? Per some of the claims I've seen since, he might not! V (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries when editing protected pages

3) Providing an informative edit summary with a rationale is particularly important when editing protected pages and can help reduce ensuing confusion and disruption.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is good, but it does not apply to this case since WMC explained the change in the talk page, and everybody understood that it was due to GoRight's proposal. Also, it doesn't address the root problem: the disruption wasn't caused by a bad edit summary, but by someone wikilawyering about the specific wording used. The solution is making clear to people that wikilawyering is not acceptable, and stopping their disruption by block if necessary so they get the message. Also, it might be used to wikilawyer that Arbcom said that WMC's actions were wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. A clearly understandable rationale in the edit summary in WMC's reversion of cold fusion while protected (instead of "let's wind everyone up") might have eliminated much of the ensuing disruption, possibly avoiding this whole arbitration case. In this edit of April 2008, if WMC felt that it was justified by WP:BLP, then including the letters "BLP" in the edit summary would have gone a long way towards reducing my difficulty when I found myself in the position of explaining the edit to a journalist. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment A reasonable general principle but one that seems to be being used here by Coppertwig to frame WMC. From her/his evidence and statements here, it seems that Coppertwig refuses to see any failing on the part of Abd and wholehearted supports his brand of POV-pushing. This kind of unquestioning support coupled with constant advice on presentation (possibly also off-wiki) is what I would call being part of a tag-team. For my part, I don't claim that WMC is a perfect administrator or why indeed we would expect that to be the case of any administrator. There's nothing black and white here. WMC's actions are completely reasonable - this kind of proposal seems to be a wikilawyering device for inferring that they are not reasonable. What's the big deal if Abd is not allowed to edit a page or two? It's certainly far more worrying that at the moment he has so far shown himself incapable of finding unrelated subjects to involve himself with on wikipedia. It is difficult for administrators dealing with extreme POV-pushers, particular those who take meticulous care with their edits in staying on the right side of the civility code. That does not seem to be quite the case with Abd's editing. Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you got all of that out of a one sentence proposal? I'm impressed. "What's the big deal if Abd is not allowed to edit a page or two?" - Well, in this case the "Big Deal" would be that Wikipedia would have a seriously flawed article that pushes a specific POV to the exclusion of all others (not that Abd is the only one fighting the Majority-POV pushing, but he is clearly effective at countering that particular bias). --GoRight (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• It was Copperwtig's wikilawyering statement afterwards about the use of this proposal against WMC that was problematic. Not being able to edit two pages of wikipedia would not normally create a problem for most wikipedians. Abd was doing more harm than good on those pages, no matter how much you praise his fringe POV-pushing and repeat his meaningless neologisms (Majority POV-pushing). Doing that identifies you as the third member of his tag-team. Mathsci (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Doing that identifies you as the third member of his tag-team." - Fine. If we are to divide up into "teams" I'll be happy to be on the team that fights against political thuggery defends the rights of the few against the will of the many, even if it isn't the popular choice amongst many participating here. And by stating "Abd was doing more harm than good on those pages" you self-identify yourself as a member in good standing of the Majority POV Pushing Society (as if there were ever any doubt), but having Raul state "I agree with Mathsci 100%" is sort of like the secret handshake for the MPPS. --GoRight (talk) 14:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Updated per off-wiki request. --GoRight (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ahem. Knock it off. Now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please clarify to whom this is directed? Both myself as well as M, or just me? --GoRight (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

  Both of you. Sniping at each other isn't going to help matters. Sorry for the delay in responding. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mathsci 100% - this proposed principle is irrelevant to the case at hand. Raul654 (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries can be good pointers and should be handled carefully of course, but where in this case was this concern raised? Shell ^babelfish 00:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Relevance? Verbal chat 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

WMC blocked an IP while involved during this case

1) WMC blocked 162.6.97.3 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) during this case for "edit warring, incivility"; the actions described as editwarring and incivility had been directed solely or primarily against WMC. See evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This incident in my evidence didn't seem to have been noticed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Difficult to evaluate without more context. If I warn an editor for vandalism or unsourced BLP edits, and the editor starts cursing me and generally acting like an ass, I can block him; the act of cursing at me does not give him immunity from me taking action against him. It would be too easy to game otherwise. Whether or not it was appropriate for WMC to make the block depends on the rest of the context which you do not give. Thatcher 16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no cursing or anything like that. Apparently the "incivility" was failing to sign posts to User talk:William M. Connolley; WMC stated that it was "rude" and "impolite" not to sign. The IP editor was posting unsigned messages asking about an issue involving the article Rebecca Quick. WMC was deleting these messages and asking the editor to sign; the editor was arguing that signing shouldn't be necessary. The last edit before the block was this. Apparently the editwarring WMC was referring to was simply the repeated posting of such unsigned messages, which were somewhat repetitive although perhaps not containing exactly the same information; I had the impression that the IP editor was posting each message in response to WMC's deletion of the previous message from his talk page (although one of them was deleted by me rather than by WMC). There was, as far as I'm aware, no reason for blocking other than the posts to WMC's user talk page, which were reasonable except for the editwarring with WMC (and me) and lack of signing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Further background: WMC had semi-protected Rebecca Quick, and 162 was posting to his talk page to ask him to unprotect it, on the grounds that an editor had stated that it was OK to go ahead and make a certain edit that had been under dispute. I had not previously been involved at all with the article; I was watching WMC's talk page because we had been having a discussion about something else, and I happened to see the message, got involved and attempted to support WMC by deleting one of the unwanted user talk page messages. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

A proxy for Abd

1) An individual will be found to interpret community consensus about Abd's behaviour. Whenever anyone gives Abd a warning or a request, the interpreter's responsibility will be to inform Abd whether complying with it is expected.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reject I could accept a mentor with power to block and ban if necessary, but only if Abd gives signals that he understands that he was part of the problem, that it's not all caused by an external cabal, and that he needs to change his behaviour. Otherwise, we'll just be in the same situation in a short time, with a lot more of wasted effort in the middle. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. However, ArbComm may certainly require a mentor, should it consider this necessary, and I would certainly accept the requirement without protest. I'm glad to see that Enric Naval would also accept a mentor. Described above is one of the primary functions of a mentor, for any editor working seriously for the betterment of the project is likely to run, sooner or later, into unreasonable opposition, and it can be very difficult to be objective about criticism of oneself. I do not consider that the problems are "all caused by an external cabal," just some, and maybe most of those named in this case, and we all need good advice we can trust. Existing dispute resolution process brings in neutral advice; the piles of complaints and warnings to which Enric has so voluminously referred were not followed up with DR process, and I saw most of them as being highly involved and not objective; however, if needed, I could point to many places where I responded quickly to complaints or suggestions. As we can see here, however, much of what was supposedly policy violation on my part was not; for example, no showing has been made that I violated policy with respect to meat puppetry or relations with banned editors. Just some very loud claims. --Abd (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is an efficient way to quickly resolve situations such as have occurred where there is disagreement as to whether there is consensus for Abd to be required to change his behaviour in some way. Based on the first two sentences here and other behaviour by Abd (such as quickly accepting the community page-ban) I expect that this would be likely to work well. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reject. If he cannot function within accepted community parameters without the need for a "translator" (read: apologist), then he shouldn't be editing here. Also, Whenever anyone gives Abd a warning or a request, the interpreter's responsibility will be to inform Abd whether complying with it is expected. - this is possibly the most ridiculous proposal I've ever seen in an arbcom case. When someone gives you a warning, you had better comply with it unless you have a damn good reason not to. This proposal is just an excuse for Abd to pretend he doesn't have to comply with warnings, like the many other warnings he's gotten and ignored.Raul654 (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"When someone gives you a warning, you had better comply with it unless you have a damn good reason not to." - I hereby warn you, Raul, to stop running checkuser on so many new accounts without reasonable evidence of sock puppetry. I hereby warn you, Raul, to stop issuing IP blocks for large segments of the known universe in the pursuit of one person and to the detriment of many others. Hopefully you can take your own advice. (Comment made to illustrate how ridiculous Raul's comments can be, in the sincere hope that doing so will help him to understand why he shouldn't be throwing stones at C through the windows of his own glass house.) --GoRight (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have prefaced that by saying when someone who knows what they are talking about gives you a warning. Warnings from users with a history of disruption do not qualify. Raul654 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

And without this completely predictable reaction on your part, my illustration would have been necessarily incomplete. Thanks for your participation. --GoRight (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

All you have illustrated here is your own penchant for wikilawyering, while at the same time you have failed to address any of my points: (a) that Abd has profound history of ignoring warnings about his behavior, and (b) that this proposal is simply a green light for him to going on doing that. Raul654 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"this is possibly the most ridiculous proposal I've ever seen in an arbcom case" - I thought that was one of your points. Are you now saying it wasn't one of your points? If it is not a point, then what is it? Also, you might want to note below that I likewise oppose this proposal. --GoRight (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What part of my above statement (b) that this proposal is simply a green light for him to going on doing that did you not understand? Raul654 (talk) 18:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose An unreasonable and completely unworkable suggestion which fails to recognize the fundamental problems with Abd's editing. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as written The proposal has a vague hint of a mentorship but without any capabilities for enforcement or restraint on Abd's behavior. Perhaps a strict mentorship by a person of Arbcom's choosing (emphatically not of Abd's choosing) with clear authority to enforce via bans, blocks etc. could be workable. Even then I would be skeptical. But this -- no. Chronie hits the nail squarely on the head below: If Abd or anyone can't understand by now how the basics work here then maybe it is time for him to find something else to do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I recognize that C has good intentions here, but I don't believe that Abd needs a keeper or an interpreter. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Mentor, yes, interpreter, no. An interpreter would only be saying what they thought Abd meant; this is not particularly helpful. If Abd is to continuing in the community, he needs more assistance than someone restating his walls of text. Shell ^babelfish 00:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) My fault, Coppertwig had mentioned the reverse before so apparently my subconscious took over :P In that case I think one of the standard mentorship clauses would make a bit more sense. Abd mentioned just below that someone is already acting in this capacity so I'd have to suggest that its not really working well and perhaps someone more experienced with mentorship would be helpful. Shell ^babelfish 04:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Shell, I think you didn't understand the proposal, it was for someone to intrepret others' warnings for me, so I'd know which ones to take seriously and which ones I could set aside, not the other way around, to interpret me for the community. No wonder you opposed! But I already have such friends who do this, this doesn't need to be part of an ArbComm remedy. --Abd (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean somebody other than Coppertwig and GoRight? Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose as writtenIf you mean a mentor then please change to say mentor so that it is clear. If you mean what you do already for Abd, than no. If Abd or anyone can't understand by now how the basics work here then maybe it is time for him to find something else to do. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose A mentor, maybe. Verbal chat 18:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Appoint a case management arbitrator

2) Each arbitration case will have one arbitrator assigned to oversee the case. This arbitrator will have no special authority over other arbitrators but, like the drafting arbitrator, will be designated as a way of dividing up the workload. The case management arbitrator will be responsible for posting a statement before or as soon as possible after the case is opened specifying what the scope of the case is, ensuring that the list of parties is appropriate, and overseeing conduct during the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. A statement at the beginning as to the scope of the case (as opposed to people having to deduce the scope from the title) would help in a number of ways and could contribute to reduction in amount of material presented, although the committee would still be free to examine all behaviour of all participants. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I can't see how this will work. We already have a drafting arbiter, a case clerk and still we have this mess. I honesty can't see that having a stated scope would have made any difference to behaviour in this case as so many contributers seem to have their own concept of what this case was here to prove. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

 Clerk note: Very often the scope of the case isn't entirely clear from the request, and only begins to become clear after detailed evidence is posted. If parties wish to limit the scope of a case, they can make a motion to be voted on by the Arbitrators to that effect. Whether the list of parties is appropriate is a matter best left to the parties themselves; anyone can add themselves as a party to the case, and anyone can be added or removed by motion. As for conduct, that is largely the responsibilities of the clerks. If is having a problem with how I'm managing conduct here, then I'd suggest you contact me to let me know what needs dealing with - I've received very few requests of this nature, and yet people have repeatedly complained about my ineffectual clerking. I cannot, nor should I be expected to, review every single diff to make sure people are behaving nicely. I do what I can, but I am far from omniscient, and if something needs dealing with, I need you to tell me or another clerk. We clerks are here for a reason, and there is no purpose to this proposal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: This proposal is not intended as a criticism of the handling of this case and I apologize if it came across that way. I've seen nothing to criticize in the handling by yourself, MBisanz, any other clerks who may have been involved, or the arbitrators. It's a suggestion that I think would help clarify things in future cases, that's all. Further clarification on the procedure for determining the list of parties would be helpful, too. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, I understand. I still feel as though this isn't entirely necessary, though. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Fritzpoll

Proposed principles

Wikipedia bans

1) A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. Blocks may be implemented as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based around the particulars of the ban in question. Bans which revoke editing privileges to all of Wikipedia—that is, they are not "partial"—may be backed up by a block, which is usually set to apply for the period which the ban itself applies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Taken from the enforcement of bans secion of the blocking policy. The trigger for this case was a page ban of Abd from Cold Fusion by WMC, so a principle of this form is required. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Needed as case revolves around a page ban. Shell ^babelfish 05:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy descriptive not prescriptive - policy may not be up to date

2) Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. Since they document current practices, policy and guideline pages may not be up-to-date

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. However, it does occur that guidelines and policies, as written, lead actual practice by some administrators, because actual practice may, in some cases, represent mere inertia, continuation of something that seems good when undeliberated, and the policy and guideline pages, as well as ArbComm decisions, are relatively more deliberated. An editor should not be penalized for relying upon a written guideline or policy; rather, if it was unclear, it should be clarified, and the editor warned accordingly. --Abd (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Beetstra. I'm often accused of wikilawyering when I point to the purpose of the guidelines and policies. I do not believe that the letter of the "law" applies here, but the founding and collective intention behind the stated rules, under some circumstances, trumps actual practice. A good example was seen in RfAr/Abd and JzG, where actual practice among the administrators operating the blacklist, i.e., the acceptance of blacklist usage for other than prevention of linkspam (and a few other exceptions), and specifically to control content by blacklisting "fringe" websites, was rejected. The actual practice violated the guideline that existed, but the guideline represented the founding intention, and thus, in the end, was more correct than actual practice. Beetstra, in fact, was not an abusive administrator in this regard, but generally attempted to preserve administrative discretion, and apparently disliked my challenge of the actual practice, but that discretion is preserved no matter what. Ignore all rules is Rule Number One. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. First two sentences from Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Latter sentence seems to be the conclusion that needs to be drawn from BURO - if the policy pages are descriptive, then there may be a natural lag between what we do and what we say we do. That may seem bad, inefficient, or whatever, but it is nonetheless the case! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, this is immediately related to Abd's reasoning and wikilawyering. Abd follows Policy and Guideline to the letter, or even more strict than the Policy or Guideline is written. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Abd's "I'm often accused of wikilawyering when ...": Abd, I was waiting for this statement. And I was actually hoping you would make it at some point. You say "... where actual practice among the administrators operating the blacklist, i.e., the acceptance of blacklist usage for other than prevention of linkspam ...". If I read the outcome of the case, then I do not see anything but two wide sweeping statements "Purpose of the spam blacklist" (unfortunately this can be used in wikilawyering, and some did, I even warned you against that: you found it necessery to use that outcome in a de-blacklisting case (unrelated to the ArbComm case), ignoring the fact that in that case the link was plainly spammed/grossly abused (ignoring arguments you can't use or which do not fit your way of thinking is a thing you tend to do anyway), and "JzG's use of the spam blacklist" (which tells us what he did, but you can wikilawyer it into that he did it wrong, if you want, I don't see violations, only not following the guidelines stictly, or even doing things which are not even mentioned in guidelines). And your statement "The actual practice violated the guideline that existed, but the guideline represented the founding intention, and thus, in the end, was more correct than actual practice.", is IMHO a schoolbook example of wikilawyerinig. And I do not dislike your challange of actual practice, that is how guidelines and policies would improve (if necessary).

Good-faith feedback for you, Abd: if you read a text/argument here on Wikipedia in one way, and you reply to that (or use that, or whatever) using your interpretation, and an opponent (also involved ones, members from a cabal (if they really exist), clueless editors, whoever) reads it in a different way, then combine those viewpoints, or use both viewpoints (i.e., do not dismiss the your opponent's viewpoint according to rules that you have proposed here, or any other rules!), and see it from their side as well. Maybe statements sometimes just say what they say. To give an example: "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions." just means "Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions.", it is not an argument against all blacklistings from the past (for which wikilawyers can use it (and have used it), as it is always true: ALL blacklistings are enforcing a content decision, e.g. "we don't want your filthy porn site here" is a content decision!), it is however an argument if there has been no (and no means really no, not 'hardly any', or 'some', just 'no') other reason for blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is an important principle to understand. Shell ^babelfish 00:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I also agree with Beetstra's advice above to Abd. I think Abd over analyzes everything, including policies and guidelines which leads to his long explanations and a lot of wikilawyering. I've never seen anything like this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Ban notification

3) In enacting bans on an editor, administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the editor is notified of the block/ban and its duration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Happy with this in its current form, though not sure it means what you mean it to say. If an editor is banned from a given page, then a notice on the page in question is sufficient, in my opinion. If you mean by the editor is notified to say notified on their talk page then you should say so William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, it should say "User talk page." Notification on the user's Talk page is routinely considered adequate; notification elsewhere is problematic. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance to this case, comment by Abd is here. (Link to summary and original comment ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Proposed. The rights or wrongs of WMC's page ban aside, I am concerned by its implementation and enforcement, and feel that some Arbcom clarity is in order. This is followed up by a proposed remedy to further clarify such things. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, though I think that such things happen generally (in talkpage posts, e.g. using templated level 4 warnings). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support' - noting that I belive sufficient steps were taken about notification in this case, although the duration may be open to discussion. - Bilby (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• SupportI prefer notices to be put on users talk pages so that it's clear and there can't be any wikilawyering about it. In this case though, it seems that both editors saw the notification on the talk page of the article and acknowledged it so no problem. I too think there is room for discussion about how long the ban is for. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not a legislature. Administrators do not "enact" bans. Furthermore, I contend that administrators do not have the right to impose bans by themselves and it would be harmful to the project if they did. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support I also would prefer user talk page notification, but if the editor replies to the notification that would count as acknowledgement of the notice! The notice in this case was clearly sufficient. Verbal chat 18:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Clear notifications are important. Shell ^babelfish 05:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bans mean no editing

4) Editors banned from a section of Wikipedia are expected to cease interacting with that section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. While this is often true, it is certainly the general case, there are exceptions, and it is the exceptions that are of concern here. So affirming the general principle -- that is what "ban" means! -- without addressing the exceptions, and there are many, is off the point. To understand the exceptions, we need to return to fundamental principles.

Why an absolutist interpretation of "ban" violates basic WP principles, comment by Abd is here. (Link to summary and original comment ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC))

• Note to Beetstra and Shell Kinney Just to be clear, I was community banned with my consent, I'd asked for early closure. I agreed to respect the ban. It didn't even dawn on me that I'd see a minor correction to make. When I did, I remembered the response to ScienceApologist, including WMC's expressed view. My position then was that "harmless edits" weren't harmless, with a community ban, because they can complicate enforcement. I'd proposed self-reverted edits then to solve this problem, and there was no objection to it, it had been cleared with an arbitrator (not by ArbComm, to be sure!). Absolutely, I did not expect to be blocked for that edit; had I expected that WMC would see the edit as a problem, I'd not have made it, it would have been disruptive. I was not disrespecting the ban, and if we have come to the point where explicitly expressed respect for a ban -- will self-revert per ban, followed by rv self per ban -- has become "disrespect," I'd like to know, so I can invest my time elsewhere. The question remains: does a self-reverted edit actually violate a ban? While I can imagine a way in which such an edit could somehow be disruptive, an editor who tried to pull that would quickly be blocked, even if self-reverted edits come to be considered acceptable under ban. Self-reverted edits are next to no edit at all, but are quite like a separate suggestion, which banned editors may make (i.e., on article talk if permitted, or to another editor, on or off-wiki). The only difference is efficiency (for all editors, not just the banned editor), plus the self-reverted edit is completely public and accessible to all. And can be ignored, if nobody is interested.
• I have elsewhere pointed out that reviewing self-reverted edits by an admin monitoring a ban converts some percentage of that monitoring into useful edits, instead of it being a total waste of time; certainly that would be true for spelling corrections, but not for more complex self-reverted edits. Self-reverted edits that are too complex will probably be ignored. Nobody wants to risk being dinged for meat puppetry by automatically reverting back a complex edit without really being prepared to take responsibility for all of it. With PJHaseldine, though, he made an edit much more complex than I'd contemplated, and it simply got restored, piecemeal, with changes. I'm telling you folks, it worked, and it caused no disruption at all.
• Beetstra, if you warned an editor: "Do not insert that link again, or I will block you," and then later you came back and the editor had inserted it and then promptly removed it, before you saw it, would you block the editor? If an editor is warned not to violate 3RR, and does, with an edit, but then self-reverts, before you see it, would you block the editor? If so, wow! If not, given that you have acknowledged that a ban is like other warnings (this is correct), why then would you consider a self-reverted edit to violate a ban?" By the way, the link addition is not like self-reverted edits, because self-reverted edits would be used to efficiently suggest a change, and if the editor has already inserted that link -- and it's been removed -- there is no need to suggest it again, and deliberately doing so would be (mildly) disruptive.
• The freedom from disruption of self-reverted edits does not apply if the edit itself is disruptive, such that its existence even transiently causes a problem; illegal content or serious incivility could be such issues, and specifically anything that would require oversight.

yes, please this reflects community consensus, and it's part of the block that was issued during the ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

weak support. This appears to be what arbcomm decided in the SA case, and perhaps they were right. I opposed that at the time, but notified SA he was going to have to live with it well before our little matter came up. It would be useful for Arbcomm to either explicitly accept or reject this principle, or to state whether it depends on the terms of an indiviudal ban. My preference would be for bans to be absolute, as it makes things simpler, which is good. expected to cease interacting with that section is somewhat ambiguous: would your wording prevent Abd from being part of the late-lamented CF mediation? Other comments: Just to be clear, I was community banned with my consent - laughable. Bans with consent are meaningless. And Abd was banned by me, as I've said. When I did, I remembered the response to ScienceApologist, including WMC's expressed view - this is false. Everyone had forgotten that until I remembered it. Etc.: Abd repeats so many other errors I'm not going to re-correct them all; silince doesn't signify consent William M. Connolley (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This seems to be the opinion of the community at several venues, and relates to Abd's block (FoF 2). Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. IMHO, a ban from a section of Wikipedia is an unenforced block, similar to other warnings ('do not insert this spam link again, or risk being blocked' is also a form of a ban). These bans are less disruptive than other measures (blocking, page protecting), and give possibility to discuss. Such bans are given regularly throughout Wikipedia (see e.g. the level 4 userpage warnings), both by regular users ánd administrators. Not enacting on such a 'ban' is regularly cause for blocking. Here the ban was 'do not edit that article', and that was, however you want to twist it, violated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Abd. Abd, that depends. You made that edit to show your point, if the spammer would make a couple of additions and self-revert, just because they wants to tell me where they wants to insert their link as well, then yes, they would run the risk. If it is because they did not interpret my warning (high level warning) properly, no, probably not.

What I mean is, I am not saying that I would block without question, but if an editor has asked an editor NOT TO EDIT a page/not to insert a spamlink again/or not to do whatever, and then that editor should certainly not be surprised that they get blocked if they persist. You were warned properly, still you did it. That is results in a null-edit does not matter here, that is simply wikilawyering ('but technically, I did not edit!', hah). If you get to a level where you get banned or where you get a level 4 warning (which generally does NOT happen just for 1 or 2 edits, you have to be persistent to get to ban/level 4 warning-level), then it should stop there. If you make a null-edit you may not get blocked, but if you do get blocked, again, don't be surprised, and certainly don't try to wikilawyer your way out of it.

It is a grey area, I realise that. But there is now a clear red line in that area. Step over it, you may get blocked. See it as the perimeter around a minefield. If you step into it and immediately back, you may be fine, but maybe, if you activate it ..

Lets take this one step further, though. When you edit and revert, that edit stands for, say, 5 seconds. So in that 5 seconds, you can be blocked, because you made the edit. If an admin would have been really trigger-happy, and that block would have been in that 5 seconds, would you then have said: "but I planned to revert". Now it is getting funny: our filthy porn-site spammer is adding first his links to hundreds of pages in the timespan of 3-4 minutes, and he then starts reverting. All fine, in your reasoning, isn't it, he practically did a null-edit on those hundreds of pages. But what if he gets blocked in the process, do you want to set a precedent for 'but ArbComm allowed null edits, I was going to remove them all next year, so I practically am doing a null-edit?' (yes, I have seen a spammer asking 'please leave my referral link there for a week, I need the money'; well, after a week it is a null-edit, so no reason to block or blacklist, I would say). It is too much a slippery slope, and your action turns even the red line in a grey area. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support I completely agree with Beetstra - bans are an attempt to avoid removing editing privileges entirely. Looking the other way when bans are disrespected is a slippery slope. Shell ^babelfish 00:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Abd: Yes, any form of interaction with a topic while under a ban is problematic, but you already knew that. This discussion has been had multiple times in several places already. "I'd like to know, so I can invest my time elsewhere." - precisely how many people have to tell you the same thing before you "know"? That's the question I know I'd really like to see answered. This is another good example of your unwillingness or inability to take the feedback offered to you on board to put problems like this behind you. Shell ^babelfish 02:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Common sense, but Abd's response in this section alone demonstrates that a finding such as this is essential. Actually, even stronger and more ironclad wording is probably necessary, though probably nothing will forestall more wikilawyering. MastCell ^Talk 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Essential. Bans must be simple and unconditional, because otherwise some editors will be tempted to see how far they can push[58] the limits.[59] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - as per Short Brigade Harvester Boris, things should be as simple and neat as possible. Allowing exceptions just makes things progressivly more complex and open to problems. - Bilby (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - The goal of the project is to move forward with the production of an encyclopedia. Edits which common sense recognizes as being constructive should not be blindly ignored. Indeed, if a ban manages to eliminate the problematic aspects of a user's behavior while accepting the constructive aspects thereof has it not turned a problem editor into a useful editor? And should that not be the true goal here?

  Raul, of course, would take this absurdity of ignoring constructive edits a step further and bar anyone from ever bringing up the topic ever again lest they find themselves facing meat puppet charges. This proposal is clearly short-sighted from the project's POV.

  The best interpretation for the project of "ban" in this context would simply be that it gives the community carte blanche to revert the problematic aspects of an editor's behavior on sight and without discussion, but why mandate the blind reversion of obviously constructive material? If a particular banned user abuses this interpretation THEN blocks become a viable solution based on the policies against continued disruption, and to the extent that a block then extends the editing restriction to the entire wiki the offending editor has no one to blame but themselves and for due cause. --GoRight (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If it helps, I tend to see this is a statement that someone can't edit when banned, not that should they do so the material they added can't then be used. If a banned editor makes a change to an article, then that banned editor is in violation of the ban. If another editor then chooses to reinstate that edit and takes responsibility accordingly, then this is a different issue, and it is not covered by this principle. - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Proper interpretation of ban. Mathsci (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to Abd and GoRight - I refer you, in brief to a reply I give somewhere below about the misapplication of IAR, the subjective nature of the term "improvement", and how "improvement" may refer to improving the collaborative environment by removing disruptive parties. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yes, this is common sense, ban means you don't edit there. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, even though it can put the enforcing admin in the uncomfortable situation of issuing a block in response to a typo correction. On the other hand, such minor edits do not generally require urgent action, leaving other methods of implementing the fix perfectly sufficient - posting to articletalk or usertalk or doing something else for a few hours, depending on the circumstances of the ban. As I see it, the value added to the encyclopedia by implementing such minor fixes a little sooner is far outweighed by the cost in the volunteer time of others. The logical extension of not upholding this principle is to have banned editors make major edits, self-revert, and wait for a PoV-friendly to re-implement in circumvention of the ban. Clearly this is unacceptable. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  "The logical extension of not upholding this principle is to have banned editors make major edits, self-revert, and wait for a PoV-friendly to re-implement in circumvention of the ban. Clearly this is unacceptable." - I was thinking along these lines just yesterday. And why is this automatically unacceptable? I agree it is currently not standard practice, but why shouldn't it be assuming your goal is NOT to simply ban a POV?

  Problematic edits are reverted with zero effort on the part of the community (they're self-reverted), constructive edits are made available for easy adoption by non-banned editors with the clear understanding that they become responsible for the content, and abuse is easily circumvented via blocks for edits which cross a now very bright line (i.e. ban violations which are not self-reverted).

  Honestly, what's the downside if you aren't trying to ban an entire POV? What's the downside if the purpose of the ban is to be protective and not punitive? --GoRight (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Such a course is automatically unacceptable as it almost completely circumvents the ban, allowing the original disruption to continue unabated. We already have a much brighter line - banned editors should not edit in the areas where they are banned. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose in the context of this case although support in general. To consider a harmless one-character self-reverted edit a ban violation is a classic example of pure wikilawyering: applying a rule "to the letter" (literally, in this case!) in a situation where the original reason for the rule clearly doesn't apply. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Rather clear, but apparently needs saying. Exceptions, if any, must be explicitly agreed. Verbal chat 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Especially necessary in light of this Raul654 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Timeline: Enactment of ban

1) WMC enacted a page ban of Abd and Hipocrite from Cold Fusion and its talkpage. The notification for this was placed on Talk:Cold fusion and the editors were not notified on their talkpages. When the ban was subsequently reviewed at WP:AN/I, discussion was ended when Abd accepted the page ban as the least disruptive course of action to take.

1.1) WMC enacted a page ban of Abd and Hipocrite from Cold Fusion and its talkpage. The notification for this was placed on Talk:Cold fusion and the editors were not notified on their talkpages. When the ban was subsequently reviewed at WP:AN/I, discussion was ended when Abd accepted the page ban as the least disruptive course of action to take following comments from various members of the community that were supportive of the page ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Inaccurate. Discussion effectively ended when the community upheld the ban William M. Connolley (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I still oppose 1.1, which is still misleading: as I said before, the end was that the community upheld the ban. Abd saw which way the wind was blowing and did his best to close down a discussion that was clearly going against him William M. Connolley (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I will, however, restate this to make it more accurate and neutral, I can see why WMC would object to it.

WMC enacted a page ban of Abd and Hipocrite from Cold Fusion and its talkpage. The notification for this was placed on Talk:Cold fusion and the editors were not initially notified on their talkpages. When Abd responded to the ban in situ, objecting, but agreeing to respect the ban pending review, WMC removed that response and warned him on his Talk page. When Abd informed WMC that he was withdrawing the agreement to respect the ban, but without any actual violating edit, the ban was reviewed at AN/I at the request of Enric Naval. When many editors rapidly appeared, supporting the ban, Abd withdrew opposition and requested a speedy close by a neutral admin, explaining his reasons. The ban discussion was closed by Heimstern and, in response to queries, clarified it as a one-month ban.

Support, but:

• change "discussion was ended when Abd accepted" ---> "discussion was ended when Abd accepted"
• add ", and the discussion was closed at Abd's requested" at the end

There was still people discussing and it would have continued anyways if Heimstern hadn't closed it, and I would have liked to see more outside editors opinating on the matter.

@Abd, see here --Enric Naval (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I think this is a succinct precis based on the evidence, and discussion above, but I welcome corrections. Predominantly used in conjunction with principle 3 and remedy 1. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to WMC: - added 1.1. This FoF is a synthesis of two points: when the discussion was held, there was a lot of initial support, and discussion was truncated by Abd apparently accepting the ban. Does 1.1, which emphasises the community input, meet with more approval? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not quite The page-bans were announced on Talk:cold fusion. [60] WMC unprotected cold fusion 2 minutes later. 30 mins later Abd read about the ban, disputed it, thus also violating it, and requested official notification on his talk page. [61] WMC placed a message on Abd's talk page 20 mins later. [62] Mathsci (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I suppose what I mean is that they weren't initially notified of the bans on their talkpages. Would adding that be satisfactory? If so, feel free to do it yourself Fritzpoll (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Initially is correct, but even with that your description is still vague. Both of them found out about the page bans from the talk page almost immediately without a problem - only Abd requested the notification on his talk page. Since WMC had locked the cold fusion page, his posting on the talk page of the "Decision" was his solution to the editing impasse, as a way of unlocking the main page and allowing smooth editing. Ideally WMC should have duplicated the "Decision" to their individual user talk pages, as for example happens in ArbCom enforcement bans, where there is in addition a separate log. Fortunately in this case there was no confusion. Unlike Abd, Hipocrite accepted the page-ban immediately. Mathsci (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  If after WMC placed the notification on the talk page Abd had started making changes to the article would those have been ban violations? It would be quite possible that he would not have seen the notice on the talk page before editing the main page. Notices on the user's talk page at least provide an indication that something requires their attention. For this reason it seems notifications on the user talk pages should be preferred. Do bans begin before the user is aware of them? --GoRight (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, in this case, Abd's initial ban violation (for which he was not blocked) was responding to the ban notice on Talk:Cold fusion, so it would be difficult to argue that he was unaware of the ban. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  I understand that which is why I started my comment with "if". I am asking a hypothetical although in retrospect I should have disassociated it from the specifics of this case. The question (in general) is, if person X edits the main page of some article without noticing a ban notification on the talk page are those edits violations of the ban and can the user be blocked for them? This is fundamental. Do bans begin before the user acknowledges (explicitly or implicitly) that they are aware of the ban? This is exactly the type of thing that I can see people wikilawyering over. Would it not be better for community practice to say, (a) users should be notified on their talk pages of any bans, (b) the ban takes effect when that notification is placed on their user page, and (c) any changes made in violation of the ban by the user after the notification is so placed may be simply reverted but blocks are inappropriate prior to it being clear that the user is actually aware of the ban (explicitly or implicitly)? --GoRight (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  I see where you're coming from now. In which case I think that it is important that users under bans need to be notified on their talkpages, otherwise the ban can reasonably be thought not to be in effect, except in situations such as these where it is obvious that the editor is aware of the injunction. The complexity of this latter point and its application is why a standardisation per remedy 1 seems to my mind to be an appropriate one Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  "except in situations such as these where it is obvious that the editor is aware" - Agreed. This is what I meant by implicitly aware. Another example would be if an editor comments on AN/I thread which declares a ban it can be reasonably assumed that the editor is aware of the ban. --GoRight (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support but this case shows that notification to the editor(s) talk page should be done so that it is clear that the editor is fully aware of the block/ban/sanctions imposed. In this case though, Abd and Hippicrit both acknowledged the ban. Abd did get a talk page notice when requested and Hippicrit had another editor let him know on his talk page. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Administrators do not normally have the authority to "enact" bans. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd block

2) Abd was blocked following an edit to Cold fusion in violation of the imposed page ban. Although Abd immediately reverted the edit, the block was congruous with the terms of the page ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose the last part. As the arbitrators will know, I have taken the position, and I took it when it involved ScienceApologist, not me, that self-reverted edits do not violate bans. Because of WMC's prior position on the SA edits under ban, I did not expect to be blocked for the edit, but there are apparently differences of opinion as to the edges of what is permitted. I have not challenged the block, per se, I did not even put up an unblock template; however, judgment of violation should be by a neutral administrator, and I had asked for a neutral close at AN/I specifically to replace WMC from being the ban administrator. As a community ban (I was electing not to challenge this, waiving my right to protest that the editors supporting were "involved," reserving that for ArbComm), it could now be enforced by any admin, excepting those involved per recusal policy. In the request for close linked above, I specifically covered this recusal issue, and Heimstern explicitly granted my request. Therefore, if my claim of involvement in dispute by WMC has any weight, it was not proper for him to block me. Any other administrator could have done so, but, I submit, it would have been unlikely that any truly uninvolved administrator would have blocked for that edit. The entire community watched Hipocrite try to stir up a fuss over ScienceApologist's spelling corrections -- which were certainly not self-reverted! --, and everyone yawned, which I'm sure frustrated both Hipocrite and SA. I'd submit that only one of the handful of cabal administrators would have been inclined to block for that self-reverted edit. Most administrators do not punish editors for technical violations, responding only to substantial ones. If we look at the reasons for the ban (actually no reasons were given, but we can infer "long posts to Talk" as the biggie), self-reverted edits do not reproduce the problem involved in the ban, at all. They preserve the substance, and, in addition, they do not defy a ban, rather they acknowledge and cooperate with it. But had the edit been disruptive or even if it had merely appeared to be possibly so to a neutral administrator, I could certainly have been blocked without warning. This is why recusal policy is so important. Administrators who are involved may, in all good faith, make biased decisions that can harm the project. --Abd (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Beetstra. I did not seek to test the limits of the ban. I intended to respect it. Perfectly. Rather, I was laboring under the impression that (1) WMC wasn't in charge of this any more, and (2) if he did see the edit, he would respond consistently with his prior expressed opinion, and that of the entire community, which was in two camps: (1) Editors should not be blocked for harmless edits. (2) Any edit complicates ban enforcement, therefore it's a problem. However, the tension between these two positions had not been resolved. In spite of many administrators unhappy with SA's edits, he was not blocked for these minor corrections, and, indeed, he was not blocked for ban violation at all, he was blocked for disruption, that is, for his declared intention. The operating consensus of the community was obvious in that case. I suggested self-reversion then to resolve the tension between 1 and 2, for a banned editor who intended voluntary compliance, because any enforcement complication involved in self-reverted edits would be trivial and gaming of it unlikely. Editors who intend defiance would not make harmless edits and self revert! They would make harmless edits, not revert them, and then raise a big stink if someone dares to block them! That was, indeed, SA's plan. But certainly not mine. Absolutely, I was shocked to be blocked then.

The reality, Beetstra, is that I would be very unlikely to suggest a spelling correction or the like on a talk page, it is way too much work for way too little benefit. Self-reverted edits are a suggestion, but made in a way that makes the whole process easy, not only easy for me (and, yes, it must be easy for me or I won't do it), but also for the community, to accept or ignore the edit. The default is that if it's ignored, it is no problem. --Abd (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fritzpoll. The issue here was not the correctness of the ban, I'd waived contesting that, except through ArbComm. (And that community ban is moot now, it's expired. What's not moot is WMC's claim that he can still block me for violating his ban, which he claims is still in effect.) While it's theoretically possible that some kind of disruption could be fomented through self-reverted edits, it's unlikely and moot in this case. My alleged offense -- it's still vague, but I'll guess -- was long posts on Talk, and self-reverted long posts are undisruptive, my argument that nobody is obligated to read them becomes much more obviously true. In this case, a one-character correction did not at all represent any kind of problematic behavior, so only the ban enforcement complication argument would apply. And self-reversion was designed to address that. For almost all ban purposes, self-reverted edits do not violate the purpose, only the letter of the ban, and I find it fascinating that there is such acceptance of the "letter" -- a "ban" is a ban, dammit! -- here, in a community where IAR is supposedly Rule Number One. Apparently opposition to the founding principles of Wikipedia is still quite alive, maybe it is even growing.--Abd (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. A fancy way of saying that, whgile the ban was in place, edits to the page are improper. Page bans are imposed because edits by an editor or editors are considered unhelpful or otherwise disruptive - the mere fact of reversion does not in itself negate the unhelpfulness or disruption that may be caused. This is not necessarily saying that the ban was correct, etc. but while Abd knew that there was a page ban, he probably should have left the page alone. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, there were still other venues where this could have been discussed or where the edit could have been explained (a talk page of an editor, e.g.). There was no need to test the limits of the ban, and as I said above, not following a certain form of ban may result in a block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Abd, yes, you disrespected the ban. You did an edit, and you ran the risk being blocked. Abd, a ban means, no editing to that page, like a level 4 warning: do not add this spam link again, or like the perimeter around a minefield. You disrespected that perimeter. Does that mean that if you step into the minefield that you will get hurt? No, but one step can be enough. Just like here. And between your edit and your revert is 5 seconds, next time 10, then a week .. slippery slope, just like stepping into the minefield (yes, you can step into it, and wait, if you don't step on the mine, it will not explode ..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Another answer to Abd, by the way, who is to decide if an edit is disruptive or not, your do-edit here was quite non-disruptive, but also there there is a grey area in between non-disruptive and disruptive do-edits. Allow this, and the next step is what you indeed also propose, allow spammers to add external links which they quickly revert. Hmm .. now there the do-edit is disruptive, what is next, inserting a personal attack and removing it in the next edit, is that a personal attack? No, Abd, this is creating vagueness, a ban is a ban, period. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Brief and probably incomplete reply to Abd. IAR is problematic here - it says that we can ignore any rules that prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. To utilise that as an argument to ignore the letter and spirit of a ban designed to keep you away from a page where, rightly or wrongly, you were perceived to have been a disruptive influence, you would have to show that you and you alone had to make that edit to improve the encyclopedia. Since it was already proposed on Talk:Cold fusion, wasn't what I would consider an "emergency edit" (BLP violation etc.) and nor was it especially significant by your own admission, I don't know why you couldn't have just ignored it, and let someone else pick it up. Improvement of the encyclopedia is not simply through editing, but can also be through the formation of the social constructs that facilitate a useful collaborative environment - WMC, for example, followed no "rule" in applying a ban to you and ignored the written rule that admins can only administer bans according to Arbcom sanction. Was that an improvement? I suspect half a dozen people on this page would say yes, and another handful would say no - I could write the list on each side now I suspect. I suppose the problem with IAR is that improvement is subjective and so you need a rapid consensus that when the rule is ignored, you've done the Right Thing(tm).
• As to your specific problem with the last sentence, I didn't expect a hearty support from you, else we wouldn't be here! :) Perhaps I am viewing it too simplistically - a ban was issued in which you were told "don't edit Cold fusion or its talk page or you will be blocked". You edited Cold fusion. You were blocked. The block is thus congruous with the ban placed in that the block did arise from a violation of the ban conditions - I find that unanswerable, regardless of who placed the block. The propriety of the identity of the blocker is a separate issue, which may be worth examining - although since you failed to challenge the block in an unblock template, we don't know how a neutral admin might have viewed it at the time, and an attempt to assess that now will inevitably be conflated with your suggestions of cabalism etc., which will taint a neutral examination. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Bingo! Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support There is no support for null edits and I don't think they are good to use after reading comments from other editors. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Abd was gaming the system. Mathsci (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a decision in this case. Wikilawyering. See my comment to the proposal above. Reply to Mathsci: No, Abd was not gaming, I'm sure: he was trying to improve the encyclopedia by fixing a ref, in a way he believed was allowed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support The edit was also incorrect. Null edits are les nulls. Verbal chat 17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  "The edit was also incorrect." - Which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, IMHO. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is standard practice. Otherwise we're asking admins to judge whether or not to block based on the merits of content rather than behavior - not an area I'd like to wade in to. Shell ^babelfish 05:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Record-keeping of bans

1) All site, topic and page bans enacted by the community or administrators should be notified to the users concerned on their talkpages and recorded centrally at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, allowing other editors to enforce or review the bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose Absolutely not. Only ArbComm bans and Community bans should be recorded there. Administrative bans should not. (Note that there is no provision on that page for recording administrative bans.) The reason is that community enforcement of bans is the purpose of WP:RESTRICT, and there is a special protection involved in both those bans: ArbComm follows careful process and ArbComm generally represents the best judgment of the community, and community bans require a consensus of uninvolved editors. While this is often ignored (vide the recent ban of NYScholar), it is, at least, a theoretical protection and could come to be more widely followed. (Community ban process should definitely be improved.) Administrative bans require no disruptive process, they are efficient, but, for the same reason, they are the responsibility (and accountability) of the administrator, and administrators should not act as meat puppets for each other, blocking simply on the say-so of another admin. We expect administrative decisions to be independent, not coordinated, it is actually a crucial part of the system. Note, by the way, that WP:BAN does not even contemplate administrative bans. They are really a locution for a "general warning that an editor's behavior in an area is disruptive." --Abd (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remark on Beetstra's comment. Yes, if an edit is disruptive, the decision to warn or block will be made by looking for a warning on the Talk page (which points up the issue raised above about warnings on article Talk). What does not happen -- or should not happen -- is that an editor is blocked, without a disruptive edit, merely because another administrator has "banned" the editor. The block requires a disruptive edit, not merely "defiance" of an administrative ban by making a useful or at worst harmless edit. --Abd (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Remark on Fritzpoll's comment. "Wider review" is not necessarily a good thing. dispute resolution process does not begin with wide discussions, it begins with narrow ones. It is better if dispute resolution escalation takes place in a manner substantially under the control of the parties, rather than encouraging wide debate of what may not need debate. We do not want automatic enforcement of administrative bans, I submit; rather, if an admin issuing a ban is unavailable, any editor who considers that disruptive conduct is continuing may request administrative assistance at AN/I, that's what it's for, and the existence of a declared administrative ban would be relevant; but also, it would be rebuttable by the banned editor. Hopefully, a quick decision could be obtained there, it's my position that AN/I is a singularly poor place for decisions on community bans, and they should probably never be determined without an RfC first, because, at AN/I, what we see is mostly expression of prejudgments (i.e, involved editors!) or snap judgments (possibly neutral editors who assume that all these involved editors can't be wrong), the environment does not allow for much more than that. In any case, if the editor is being disruptive, that would justify a block, and the existing admin ban simply serves as a warning. If, however, the existence of an administrative ban becomes an effectively binding decision that is then enforced by other admins without question, we have institutionalized possible abuse, and have given up our system of personal administrative responsibility. Ironically, this was the issue that I debated on my Talk page with Fritzpoll shortly before being blocked last August. Personal administrative responsibility for a ban close on AN/I. --Abd (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, and Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions needs updating. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. It may seem a little bureaucratic, but single administrators, or the small groups that frequent our noticeboards cannot always be the sole enforcers of any kind of ban. We have a page for this somewhere, but it is infrequently used. If used more, it could be watchlisted so that such bans are automatically visible for wider review, mitigating the more confrontational aspects of the social systems we have in place. Note that this isn't an admonishment of WMC. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not necessary. The ban warning is on the user's talkpage, any admin can find it and make sure it happens if violated. That also happens with level 4 warnings, if an editor is found editing in a 'problematic' way, then a visit to the talkpage is the next step, and upon visiting the talkpage an admin can decide to block or warn again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• The first part (now clarified) is relevant, I think - which is that users need to be notified on their talkpages. We can argue about the central log, which we already have, but that I can't remember the location of! The problem in this case is that the ban warning wasn't on Abd's or Hipocrite's talkpages, and in the case of longer-term bans (this was originally indefinite) we cannot reply on ban notifications being present, particularly given that the notices may be removed by the users themselves. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
• Update: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions is the page I was after Fritzpoll (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, better indeed. Though I do think that by far the majority of the bans is notified to the user, on wiki, in any form. If the user does not know the ban (as it was not told on his user talkpage or he did not acknowledge it somewhere else (if an editor edits an ANI thread where is stated that he is banned from page X, then that editor knows)), then there is something wrong, and the situation should then be re-evaluated (if blocked, unblock, ban is from that moment,e. g.). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• YES, another case of misinterpreting, Abd. This is about how bans should be announced, not about if they should be enacted upon. So you here oppose, so if no-one informed you of the ban, it still exists. Fine with me.
• By the way, and at least for the 'should be notified to the users concerned on their talkpages', I now support this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support --GoRight (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While forgetting to record a ban at WP:RESTRICT should NOT be grounds for arguing that the ban is somehow invalidated, once the oversight is brought to the attention of the declaring administrator they should be reasonably expected to correct that oversight upon request, IMHO. YMMV --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Abd - I'm not actually thinking about just you here :) WP:RESTRICT would undoubtedly be underwatched relative to other boards and, rather than prompting community discussion, it would simply allow a third party to immediately observe an abuse, inadvertent or otherwise and approach the banning admin about it. The problem without logging is that bans are impossible to administer unless someone aware of the ban (of whom there may be few) is continually watching the edits of the banned editor. It is better for openness, transparency and a check and balance on administrators' activities that such actions are centrally logged. Blocks have their own log that can be reviewed in real-time as part of the software that allows unusual or erroneous blocks to be examined - the same should be true of these lesser restrictions. I don't see why you think that any admin would block automatically because of a ban imposed by another admin - unless you truly believe us to be drones! If anything, this process can reduce the institutionalisation of blocks and bans by making it so that the banning admin doesn't have to ever enforce their own ban - it seems to me that this is where you want to move to in your comments about WMC elsewhere on this page. A ban is, in any case a social construct that says that an editor's presence in a particular part of Wikipedia is disruptive - somehow it is impeding the working of improving the encyclopedia. Whilst the ban and its length and terms should always be open to review, the enforcement should remain simple: you edit an area you are banned from, you get blocked to prevent recurrence.

Individual edits may not be disruptive, so what you say would mean that banned editors would be allowed to edit provided the individual edits were acceptable (per your theoretical assessment occurring at ANI) unless, bizarrely, the banning admin was around when different rules would seem to apply. Too complicated, too arbitrary. You should of course be able to challenge the ban socially following DR, but until its lifted you have to follow its terms. That, and that alone, is the least disruptive course of action. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: this is an attempt to create new policy; this is not the right forum. However, I agree with recordkeeping, but disagree with use of the word "enact" and with creation of bans by individual administrators (in general). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support This is a good idea, especially for anything long term. Would avoid confusion over type and length of ban as happened in this case. Shell ^babelfish 06:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Tony Sidaway

Proposed principles

Bureaucracy

1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, a battleground, or an experiment in governance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is very true, and very succinct. Tony, if you are returning to the arbitration pages, this is a good way to start. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, but I think I've said this already: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M. Connolley/Workshop#WP:BURO William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, concise and to the point. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Historically, commonsense actions have been taken to improve Wikipedia without excessive discussion. Such actions sometimes include temporarily excluding editors whose behavior has become problematic from editing all or part of Wikipedia, subject to review. --TS 11:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Agree per EN and WMC. Verbal chat 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, per my support at #WP:Buro. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Community bans

2) Any editor may be excluded from editing all or part of Wikipedia where there is community consensus for the exclusion. Such bans may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think there's much dispute about this principle at this point, though I don't know if this has been stated as clearly in a decision in quite this form. (See also my comments in my vote to decline the Allstarecho case request, earlier today.) What is a bit more controversial and may need clarification (perhaps in the decision or perhaps via a policy discussion) is the question of whether a single administrator may impose a pageban or topic ban, outside the context of arbitration enforcement, without first attaining consensus from others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This is better, it allows admins to act in those corner cases that the policy doesn't cover for some reason or other. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. --TS 12:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to Newyorkbrad's question at 23:44, evidently yes, it can be done, subject to community review. Remember that a ban doesn't have the same drastic effect as a block, and admins routinely block without prior consultation. If such a ban didn't have consensus then this fact would surely emerge very quickly. --TS 00:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Response to NYB - "the question of whether a single administrator may impose a pageban or topic ban, outside the context of arbitration enforcement, without first attaining consensus from others" - I agree 100% that this needs to be clarified ... somewhere appropriate. This is one of the core reasons for my participation here. --GoRight (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Such bans should not be imposed simply because, for example, a supermajority dislike the editor's POV. To avoid this possibility, reasons should be given in terms of editor behaviour, with the implication that the ban can be lifted if there are assurances that the editor will behave differently. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Standard practice already. Shell ^babelfish 06:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

3) The Arbitration Committee may subject editors to restrictions on where and when, and how often they may edit all or part of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If you think it's necessary, agree. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. There is probably a standard boilerplate for this. --TS 15:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The power to issue blocks and bans includes any lesser remedy, sure. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

William M. Connolley an uninvolved administrator with respect to Cold fusion

1) William M. Connolley's last substantive edits to Cold fusion were in 2006.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe I was uninvolved. I'd forgotten the 2006 stuff; it was an age away William M. Connolley (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Goes with WMC was an involved editor on Cold Fusion in January 2006. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

P.D.D.: I analyzed WMC's edits here --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I thought about this for a while. No claim has been made that WMC was involved with the article in the ordinary sense. However, he was involved in what this case is about, which is not the article, for his intervention there, with the edit under protection and the ban, was supporting a faction of editors, I've called the cabal. Ever since RfC/GoRight, I was perceived as an enemy of the cabal, thus the effort to ban me (from the article or from WP space or from the project entirely), which began with vague threats earlier from WMC, escalated to a massive call for me to be banned during RfC/JzG 3 (JzG being a cabal administrator as defined in my evidence), but which only acted to actually ban through WMC at Cold fusion and the AN/I report filed by Enric Naval. This is why I raised the issue of the cabal, because the collective action of a group of editors who regularly support each other can, without deliberate coordination, produce an appearance of consensus when there is none, but only participation bias, by an highly and interconnected faction. It shows in a striking agreement upon behaviorally extreme positions that do not find support in the general editorial community or at ArbComm, it is quite visible in this case, in the evidence presented and the arguments given in this Workshop. Because of the complexity of the problem, ArbComm may not be able to address this here. If it is not addressed however, it can be predicted that this group of editors will continue to create serious long-term disruption, as I plan to address in a few proposals and responses. --Abd (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. --TS 12:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Abd's' definition of "involved" would disqualify each and any administrator from any topic within days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support The community already upheld this, but it does not hurt to repeat it here. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Goes with #The community found no problem with WMC's blocks when they were brought up for review. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Easy to check. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support If he edited in 2006 then yes those are old. Editors under sanctions seem to use the claim of involvement first to make an administrator recuse, it hardly ever works. Abd's list of involved administrators is too lengthy to be believable to me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Clearly uninvolved with the dispute that is the focus of this investigation. Verbal chat 17:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I see many of the Connolley elite apologists are out in force here today. That is why Connolley has always avoided sanctions for breaking the rules repeatedly. Connolley has a rich history of abusing his administrative powers, blocking editors on articles he regularly edits on. Ikip (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Connolley elite apologists"? I had barely interacted with WMC before this case. Could you retract that? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, WMC wasn't specifically involved with Cold fusion, his action there did not proceed from a specific content POV, though possibly from an overall cabal attitude, seen in this case, for example, by claims that Cold fusion is pseudoscience (which is not at all our consensus). After all, ScienceApologist had been active with CF. Enric Naval was not involved specifically with WMC, but with Cold fusion, allied closely with JzG and ScienceApologist, as can be seen in the actions around the ban of JedRothwell. CF has been classified as Fringe Science, which it certainly was and arguably may still be, thus ScienceApologist was banned from editing the article. Remarkably, he hardly continued participation there at all, and I believe it is easy to see why. The cabal is accustomed to prevailing through sheer force, and accomplishing article work through advice in Talk just is not their style. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Abd "Ever since RfC/GoRight, I was perceived as an enemy of the cabal" - If there's any "cabal", I should be first in line to claim membership, having worked with WMC et al. on GW-related articles since about 2005, and having participated in the AC case with Cortonin. As the second-longest serving member of the "cabal" (ie, the editors who have been editing GW-related articles alongside William; I defer to Vsmith in terms of seniority here), I would like to assure Abd that I barely knew who he was until he filed this case. Guettarda (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Also re Abd: The cabal is accustomed to prevailing through sheer force, and accomplishing article work through advice in Talk just is not their style - assuming I'm still part of your Cabal, why on Earth have I explained the basics of atmospheric greenhouse effect, water vapor, scientific sources, atmospheric processes on Jupiter, the composition of the IPCC, the second law of thermodynamics, black body radiation, the influence of prices and land use change on extreme weather caused damages, how to read graphs, moving averages ... over and over again to each and every comer for the last few years? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think this is true; he's uninvolved in cold fusion. That said, there's no way he's uninvolved with respect to Abd, which was the problem here. Cool Hand Luke 16:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Wizzy…☎ 06:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for a ban of Abd

2) William M. Connolley banned Abd and Hipocrite from editing Cold fusion and its talk page "for an arbitrary time of approximately one month"; a subsequent discussion confirmed that there was consensus for the ban in the circumstances prevailing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yeah. This would need a separate finding "WMC clarifies later that the ban is indefinite, pending review after one month". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. --TS 12:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Indeed, there was much rejoicing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Goes with #State of the Cold Fusion article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Which means I agree that the description is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support This is what happened. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Yes the report to the ANI board was what brought this to my attention because the board is on my watchlist. So needless to say, the cabal charges are false. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support No other interpretation makes sense. Verbal chat 17:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's editing of Talk:Cold fusion

3) In just over four months at Talk:Cold fusion, Abd added many long, repetitious comments. (evidence). He has refused to modify this behavior, blaming time constraints and other factors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Many, indeed. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. --TS 16:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Goes with #Abd ignores warnings. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And is also accurate. This is more specific than the above. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Long term behaviour. Verbal chat 18:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Accurate statement. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Abd has responded to requests to avoid long comments by shortening some of his comments; putting some in collapse boxes; and has stated that he will avoid long comments at Talk:Cold fusion. He also stated elsewhere that he had already stopped making long comments there (before the ban) and had started editing the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• see ...and_he_keeps_wall-of-texting in my evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Abd reminded

1) Abd is reminded to engage constructively in improving Wikipedia and to avoid excessively disputatious behavior. He is again reminded to heed feedback from other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No. Sufficiently weak to be meaningless. Remember that in his last case Abd was advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M. Connolley/Workshop#Abd_in violation_of_previous_arbcomm_remedies. His response is to assert that Oppose, of course, because I have fully attempted to follow the advice.

Useless given the circumstances, it will be used to wikilawyer that Arbcom only gave him again some good advice. See #7 here. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. --TS 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose; history shows that he will ignore warnings, advice, admonishments, etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If you read through Abd's comments in these very pages, you will see that he is impervious to warnings or advice - they are all reinterpreted to fit is preconceived notion, or discarded as "not neutral". I move for at least strongly reminded and admonished ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose All evidence suggests that this approach will not work. Mathsci (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Hasn't worked in the past, will be viewed as a victory. Verbal chat 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd restricted and reminded

2) For a period of six months, Abd is restricted to one reasonably brief comment per day on any one article talk page, and reminded that he may spend as much time as he needs to ensure that his comments are concise and do not revisit older material unnecessarily. This restriction does not apply to any other pages where discussion is permitted. Abd may also make edits, marked as minor, to correct typographical errors. Abd is instructed to use the "preview" feature wisely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Hum, maaaaaybe. Interesting, indeed. However, like above, this will be wikilawyered, so replace "reasonably brief" with "X words long", also say "and warned not to revisit older material unnecessarily" because "reminded" is too weak and will be interpreted by Abd to mean that he can re-visit anything that he considers necessary.

(Btw, what if he makes every single comment to Talk:Cold fusion? One per day piles up quickly) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Unusual, but may be just the push Abd needs to modify his behavior. --TS 16:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This will not work. Risker and NYB already requested brevity and conciseness in this ArbCom case. Abd shows no sign of that, either in his evidence or on this workshop page. His use of cabal here and User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing on talk pages are ways of gaming the systems by systematically introducing disruptive red herrings as a means to filibuster and slowly push a fringe point of view. The existence of a cabal is an extreme point of view which Abd uses here as if everyone had accepted it, whereas the opposite is undoubtedly the case. Abd seems to take very little notice of any advice other people give him. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There are problems with this kind of remedy. One comment per day may not be appropriate, and "reasonably brief" could conceivably be gamed. I think if there were a finding that a user had in the past gamed the system then we might want to look at a quite different kind of remedy. Confirming the topic ban might be more appropriate, given the evidence I have seen to date. --TS 09:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. More restrictive than necessary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban confirmed

3) The Committee endorses the community ban enjoining Abd from editing Cold fusion or its talk page. Should circumstances change, the ban may be lifted by community consensus or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This ought to be enough, really. If Abd should ever cause a similar problem elsewhere the community should be able to resolve the problem by increasing the scope of the existing community ban. That's how things are supposed to work. --TS 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Question - What's the point of their endorsing an already expired community ban? --GoRight (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge the ban is still in place. --TS 08:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ban was for one month and has expired. The Arbitration Committee normally doesn't impose remedies longer than a year. Reasons for the ban have not been clearly articulated: i.e. what behaviour Abd is being asked to change. Banning several editors on one side of a content dispute (Jed Rothwell, PCarbonn) is problematic for NPOV. Abd has already stated that he will avoid disruptive behaviour and walls of text at the cold fusion article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Beetstra

Proposed principles

Declaration and enforcement of "ban"s

1) Any editor can urge another user to not perform a certain action (in other words: "ban" from performing said action), when the user finds the actions by the other user to have resulted in disruption of the editing process on Wikipedia, or to be in violation of our policies and guidelines (and are expected to continue to do that).

Such "ban"s include, but are not limited to: 'do not vandalise that page again', 'do not insert that information again', 'do not add that (spam-)link again', or 'do not edit that page again'. The "ban"s can include provisions like "for the next week", or "until you have discussed this there or there". "Ban"s of this form are regularly declared in the form of templated warnings like the {{uw-vandalism4}}-, {{uw-advert4}}-, {{uw-spam4}}-, {{uw-delete4}}-templates (see Wikipedia:Warning templates), or e.g. via a non-templated post (generally on the user's talk-page) addressed to the user performing the actions.

All users are free to discuss or ask a review of such "ban"s by independent users, but are expected to follow the "ban", also during the time it is discussed. Such "ban"s do not have the requirement that they are acknowledged by the user; and they include any form of actions prohibited by the ban, even if the (net) result of the action is not disruptive, or even 'improving' Wikipedia.

When a user is, after having been issued such a warning (and can, within reason, be expected to have read the notice), again performing the action as prohibited by the "ban" (without having significant support that the ban is actually inappropriate in beforementioned reviews or discussions, or has been notified that the ban has been lifted), then that may (not "must"!) result in a block to enforce the "ban" without further explanation, for a duration in accordance with our block policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This type of ban exists "de facto", in the form explained in this principle. It's disingenuous to say that they don't exist just because WP:BAN and Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions don't consider them. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. I don't really see an intrinsic difference between the ban declared by William M. Connolley 'do not edit that page', and the strongly urging level-4 type warnings which are regularly issued by (even non-admin) users to other users. Practically, they often are also "ban"s issued by one user, and are also regularly enacted upon (violations after a level 4 warning often result in blocks of various lengths). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Expanding the reason why I am proposing that if someone tells you not to do something, or bans you from doing something (whether that is an admin or not) effectively is a ban, and that it a) does not matter if that is described in WP:BAN (those level-4 warnings are not there!) and b) that you then better listen to it, and not just unilaterally decide that you can go over that, see permanent link to discussion on Abd's talkpage (first to posts for why, rest on Abd's reaction). He simply does not want to listen to that ban because he a) does not believe it is a ban, b) he does not follow it because there is only one admin applying it, and then goes on to wikilawyer about involvement, see above. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• A principle as specifically worded as this could constrain the formation of policy within the community. Just because this ban worked, doesn't mean we need to write a policy page for it. It was an unusual situation correctly identified and skilfully handled by an experienced sysop. It's the reason we expect sysops to exercise judgement and not just apply rules. --TS 11:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(I indented your comment, Tony, feel free to remove that again). What I believe is, that this is more common practice, how Wikipedia at the moments 'works', and how guideline and policy are already written (indeed, wikilawyering would here allow, that this is not in fact a ban, since it is not described in the banning policy). But I don't think there is anything here which is not backed up by that 'common practice'.

It is indeed common sense and judgement on how the 'ban' is applied, and hence that I use here and there some soft wording like 'may', there is freedom not to do things, but thát is not a reason that they can not occur, and that they are therefore incorrect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Not bad. However, one should not be expected to follow clearly ridiculous or inappropriate warnings, even pending discussion; and it may sometimes be difficult to know where to draw the line. Limiting it to "good faith" warnings may not be enough, as inexperienced users might express inappropriate warnings in good faith, and it may be difficult to discern what is or is not done in good faith (besides, we're supposed to AGF). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reply: when we get to bans/level 4 warnings, we are way beyond 'clearly ridiculous or inappropriate warnings', if those are of that level, then the warning editor might need to be reported; still, for the moment not insisting in editing and following the ban might be wise, if only to show your side of WP:AGF. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

2) Requests for arbitration should not be used for pointless disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed, per my reasoning here diff. I mean, what is this really about? A nice, soft solution (where there were more harsh solutions available), applied to two parties who were (whether right or wrong) were editing Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion in a way which could be conceived bad. Just following the solution that the admin chose, and discussing that, instead of escalating it and finding arguments around it, would have resulted in way less wikidrama. Is it so bad that sometimes you are told to take a step back? Do you really have to apply every single policy and guideline which you find applicable to fight such a soft solution? Could WP:TROUT have been applied early on? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support Very well said. I don't think anyone has stated things going on here any better than you do here. Thanks for cutting through and getting to the main points here. For the record, I agree with what Beetstra says above me and esp. in the dif. --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support A waste of everbody's time. See [63]. Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, please - 2/0 (cont.) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I am astounded at the man-years of effort that must have accumulated on this case. The last Raul/Scibaby thing was the tipping point. Wizzy…☎ 07:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Loss of trust

3) An embittering in the atmosphere on Wikipedia can result in a loss of trust in individual editors, administrators, arbitration and/or all of the Wikipedia community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. I can say that when an editor is calling for me to be banned, it certainly has a negative effect on my emotional response to that editor. Fortunately, I have a short emotional memory. I'm very serious about that! Many others don't have that, for better or worse. We really need to more widely educate editors how to follow WP:DR instead of jumping to noticeboards, etc. --Abd (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Per my remarks in other Principles and Findings of Fact. Why are we here in this Arbitration request? Is it worth it to end up in a loss of trust in the structure of Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)(adapted per Mathsci, 'embittering' --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

• Response to Abd: or learn them to not go into dispute resolution, but into friendly discussion, and work it out together. There was no dispute, that dispute only became a dispute because you made it into a dispute, and that is what the bitter remarks here on this page are a result of (at least mine). I am sorry, but in my opinion, this is just a total, utter waste of time because you turned it into a dispute. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. (I think you possibly mean embittering.) Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree I questioned this at the beginning during the request part. There seemed to be a bit of a rush to have this case. [64] --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Escalation of the situation by Abd

1) Abd has here escalated a situation which did not need escalation, but could have been resolved in a positive way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Per my proposed principle 'Arbitration' (vide supra). Help in clarifying proposal. This was a soft solution which needed encouragement, not being condemned. Sometimes cooling down is good. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• No need to go to these lengths. Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree--CrohnieGal^Talk 12:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• So much of this case has already been reviewed by the community or ArbCom ... - 2/0 (cont.) 08:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Waste of time

2) This arbitration procedure is a waste of time, time that certainly could have been used in a better way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

support. So far, at least. Would reconsider if anything useful does emerge William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support All the time that I could have spent deleting biographies of porn stars.... --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• See diff, and my FoF 'Escalation of the situation by Abd'. I mean, someone calculated 207 pages of single spaced evidence yesterday (did I get that time right). About what is essentially a situation that did not need escalation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely. Mathsci (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely To say the least. I wasted hours to read through this case. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Embittering

3) The escalation of pointless disputes, which could have been solved in a different way, results in an embittering of the atmosphere on Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• See diff, and read the responses of other editors on this page (e.g. diffs. I want to stress here, that it is not only the bitterness that someone is escalating a dispute that did not really needed to be escalated, it is also that escalating a dispute needlessly to the highest level, results in an amount of wikidrama and more bitterness due to (sometimes needlessly) harsh solutions which are chosen. I would really not be surprised that admins (and editors) here now think 'why are we doing this, a hobby is supposed to be fun, maybe I should leave'. And for what, again .. ? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)(one diff adapted after a spelling correction. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC))(Adapted again, not all solutions are needlessly harsh. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

• P.S. Now I have a headache. Too much wikidrama. Is it really worth it all? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Quite apparent in this case. Why not sit down and have a nice cup of tea? Mathsci (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Failure to take action during this case

4) The community, the clerks, and the Arbitration Committee failed to keep a firm eye on the actions of the parties during this case.

4.1) The Arbitration Committee, its clerks, or the community failed to keep a firm eye on the actions of the parties during this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed. There is ample time between Abd's notification that he considered the ban over (21:32, 8 August 2009), the actual edit (08:29, 9 August 2009) and the block by WMC (10:21, 9 August 2009). I will take it upon myself as well, I did read Abd's notice late in the evening of 8 August 2009, and failed to respond to it, if even to just say, that Abd maybe should consider not to edit the page while this case was active, as he was a party and the ban was part of the discussion in that case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: although this proposal seems to condemn only Abd's edit of Talk:Cold fusion, it still is true, that however long the time, I do consider the acting on it by William M. Connolley during this case also unwise, if not wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Added 4.1, wherein I change the order. I actually do think that it is primary the Arbitration Committee (or through its clerks) that should keep an eye on this, but I am not freeing the community (or myself) from that task either. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd is twisting and turning

5) Where needed, Abd changes his mind. Whereas he first declares "You have no authority to ban a user from an article, on your own initiative, per WP:BAN." (diff), he later declares "administrators may ban as a strong and general warning..."/"... yes, administrators may ban ..." (diff), where he acknowledges that administrators are allowed to ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. The question now is, is Abd still banned from editing Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion by William M. Connolley, or not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd decides what is disruptive ...

5) When Abd is banned from a page, he is still allowed to edits, as long as they are non-disruptive, and gets to decide what is not disruptive: "...but may not enforce their own ban by blocking for a nondisrutpive edit."/"...they may not, from a self-declared ban like that, block for non-disruptive behavior, ..." (diff).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Wikitrout 1 - Abd strongly reminded

1) Abd is strongly reminded not to baselessly accuse everyone else of violating the rules, or that they are inventing rules that don't exist. If he persistently does this in in future, he may be whacked with trouts by administrators until the message gets through.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Please, Abd. Don't escalate situations which are solved in a soft way (where there are harder solutions which could have been used), don't discuss your way through it by finding loopholes in policies and guidelines, but instead, discuss the loopholes in the policies and guidelines on the talkpages of those policies and guidelines, finding solutions. Maybe they are for the best. It is not so bad if someone tells you not to do something. Just count to 10, realize that, even when you are right (!), maybe the solution (even if it is not described in policy or guideline) is a good one, and cooling the situation is not that bad. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, but let's also spare a thought for all those poor trout as well. Mathsci (talk) 10:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my earlier comment. This remedy will be utterly ineffective. Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Pointless. In his own mind he hasn't done this, so the reminder will be disregarded. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikitrout 2 - Abd strongly reminded

2) Abd is strongly reminded not to escalate disputes, but sometimes to step back, and count to 10, and just live through it, or maybe even consider that the solution can improve a situation. Again, if he persistently does this in in future, he may be whacked with trouts by administrators until the message gets through. 2.1) Abd is strongly reminded not to escalate disputes, but sometimes to step back, and count to 10, and just live through it, or maybe even consider that the solution can improve a situation.

In other words, if an editor (not being an editor with who there is an active, current dispute on the same subject in the last 72 hours) is applying a restriction on Abd, then Abd has to follow that restriction to the letter. Note here, that if an editor has, in that 72 hours, commented in the same area, or has restricted or even blocked Abd on another dispute or subject, that that does not mean immediately that the editor is involved in the active, current dispute, and that that is not to be used as an argument by Abd, neither as a reason for Abd not to follow the restriction.

Abd will follow the restriction without questioning. He is allowed to discuss the restriction with the commanding editor first, and if there is no avail, he is allowed to bring it to an administrators noticeboard for further discussion. All this discussion should be strictly on merits of why that restriction was given, no other forms. If there are further steps necessary in a dispute resolution, those have to be seconded, on wiki, by at least two, strictly uninvolved, administrators.

The restriction given by the editor has to be followed to the letter. Any form of disregard of the restriction will result in Abd being whacked with trouts until the message gets through, and can result in a block, even when the result is an actual improvement, or non-disruptive. Whacking with trouts or blocks can also be applied when Abd does not discuss a restriction strictly on merits of why that restriction was given, but uses other reasons on why the restriction is not valid. Validity of the restriction on other reasons can be given by Abd, but he is not allowed to discuss them, he is not allowed to use it as a reason not to follow the restriction, or to conclude from them; that is strictly to the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Proposed. Bit of a split off of my comment for Wikitrout 1. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Other therapy might be to edit a relaxing and stress-free wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per my earlier comment. This remedy will be utterly ineffective. Raul654 (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointless, per my response to Wikitrout 1. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response/reply to Raul654 and Short Brigade Harvester Boris: The basis of the problem seems to be, that if someone says to Abd 'do not walk on the grass', then Abd will find reasons why he would be allowed to walk on the grass, or he will find reasons why that someone is not allowed to say to him that he is not allowed to walk on the grass. And that is for him reason to go into dispute resolution. The 'do not walk on the grass' is not evaluated on the merit of 'why is someone saying to me that I am not allowed to walk on the grass' (look good in previous cases, there is seldom or never a point where a 'do not walk on the grass' is evaluated on that only, there is, always a lot around it). That is how his mind works, apparently.

There is not 'OK, I will not walk on the grass'. What I am trying to say here, that if someone says to Abd 'do not walk on the grass', that he then has to follow that, to not find a reason why he should not, and follow those rules. No, strictly, follow it, and discuss it. But if there is a restriction, whoever said it, or for whatever reason it was said, follow it, do not go blindly into dispute resolution on every restriction. Because that is where the problem lies.

I could write this more restrictive, I'll give it a try in a 2.1. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikitrout 3 - William M. Connolley strongly reminded

3) William M. Connolley is strongly reminded not to use his administrative tools while in an active dispute with someone. If he persistently does this in in future, he may be whacked with trouts by administrators or arbitration committee members until the message gets through.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

support - OK, I can live with this. Oppose the reminders to Abd above: per my comments elsewhere, and Boris here, they are a waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. I believe that all is a result of a needlessly escalated situation, but the second block was wrong. No way around it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I hope the trout are clean. Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If both Abd and William M. Connolley agree to take a shower before (and maybe tea together afterwards), that should not be a problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, WMC will heed instructions even when he doesn't agree with them. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Ikip

Proposed principles

Administrators involved in disputes

1) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved as an editor. In several recent instances, administrators involved in disputes over an issue or with a user have taken sysop actions relating to that dispute and then referred the actions a noticeboard for endorsement or review. This practice generally is not sufficient to comply with policy against action by "involved" administrators. In such circumstances, the administrator should not take the action but should instead report the issue to the noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If this is meant to be taken from our prior cases, there's a sentence missing near the front. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Irrelevant since WMC was not involved in a dispute with Abd. He banned him from a page for disruption. For this case this is only an attempt to expand the definition of "involved" to the point where you have to ask for uninvolved admins for everything. POPV-pushers will rejoice for how this makes their task easier. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Ikip (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Corrected per Newyorkbrad's suggestion. Original here. Ikip (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Would need an accompanying finding that William M. Connolley was an involved administrator on Cold fusion. --TS 08:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Editing an article in 2006 does not make an admin involved in 2009. Mathsci (talk) 10:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• A passing edit 3 years ago cannot possibly make you involved in an editing and conduct dispute now. The fact that WMC didn't remember the edit and its taken some weeks to emerge shows that this clearly cannot be a pattern of significant non-admin activity on the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Irrelevant as WMC was not involved, per Spartaz, MathSci, TS. Verbal chat 11:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Basic policy: "Administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Relevance: a major focus of this case is use of tools while involved by WMC. In my evidence I give an example of such during this case. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Although I think that this is more properly considered a principle than a finding of fact. I certainly support the principle articulated here. --GoRight (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• QUESTION maybe some can argue that Connolley was not involved before this arbcom, (even though Connolley used his administrative powers to edit Cold Fusion when it was protected stating he was going to provoke editors: "Lets wind everyone up").[65]
  Okay, so lets say Connolley is not involved then. But the block 3 days ago, HOW CAN ANYONE ARGUE THAT CONNOLLEY WAS NOT INVOLVED?[66] This blatant disregard for the rules is Connolley's trade mark. Connolley has gotten away with it so many times in the past, he probably figures he can continue to do it again now. Viridae unblocked Abd stating: "No such restriction in place. Block performed by very involved admin" [67] Arbcom Rlevse stated: "Not only are you highly involved with this user...This is a clear abuse of admin rights and I will be proposing a temp desyssop pending the final decision in the case." [68] Connolley's behavior is finally getting the attention and justice it deserves. Ikip (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Sounds perfectly reasonable. Dream Focus 05:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

2) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Geogre-William_M._Connolley Ikip (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrators

3) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed, from Geogre-William_M._Connolley Ikip (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

William M. Connolley has a long history of abusing his administrative tools, particularly Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes

2) Per evidence presented here.[69]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

With the Arkady sock we already had this sort of distorsions, I wrote "The community didn't find any problem with the blocks performed by WMC" to address some of those cases. Ikip is now repeating some of the fallacies. Specially in the A.K.Nole case, which my evidence also covers, Ikip is cherry picking comments by admins but ignoring how the ANI thread actually finished, and how other thread was closed. This sort of thing has my despisal and I'm not going to bother addressing all the distorsions. I have limited time and I come to wikipedia to write articles, not to fight distorsions that I have already addressed from people carrying old grudges. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Proposed. Ikip (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Most of your complaints are stale anyways. They have been considered previously, and not found problematic. William is one of our more active admins, especially with enforcing WP:3RR, and hence generates a greater number of whiners. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Stephan Schulz. Nothing to do with this case. Mathsci (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Stephan Schulz. Stale, irrelevant, and personal grudge. Verbal chat 11:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that some of the other editors here have a different understanding of what it means to be "stale" than I do, at least judging from the dates of the incidents used on the referenced evidence page. It provides several recent incidents. And even if there is some merit to their claims of the evidence being "stale", that would simply be the demonstration of the "long" part of that "long history", no? I remain undecided on whether to support this or not at this time. In the end it is the arbiter's opinions which will carry any weight. --GoRight (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• "stale" is always the argument of editors who support a disruptive editor. But as shown recently, Connolley is still abusing his administrative powers. In arbcoms, when someone has a history of disruption and abuse, and continues this disruption and abuse presently, those past actions can show a pattern. I mention new abuses, including the Febraury 2009 abuses of admin power, and some abuses which happened 26 June 2009, 23 June 2009, 30 June 2009 [more evidence soon].
  Please note that one of the dozens of Connolley controversial blocks was with Mathsci and another editor on 30 June 2009. In which Mathsci and Connolley was involved in "mutual trolling" and "small tag teams"
  If 30 June 2009 is stale? If so Mathsci, Verbal and Schulz you better remove 99% of your evidence. Ikip (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence used by Schulz	Evidence used by Mathsci	Evidence used by Verbal
19:17, 20 July 2009	Extended content 06:29, 9 August 2009, 19:32, 8 August 2009, 16:29, 12 June 2009 00:16, 13 June 2009 03:03, 13 June 2009 04:17, 19 July 2009. 10:31, 7 June 2009 09:18, 19 April 2009 13:46, 19 April 2009 23:08, 2 May 2009 09:18, 19 April 2009 *00:22, 3 June 2009 15:19, 25 May 2009 *20:23, 28 July 2009 15:34, 14 July 2009 03:41, 24 July 2009 01:33, 10 June 2009 *[70] 13:57, 17 July 2009 19:53, 18 May 2009 05:48, 10 May 2009 20:02, 23 May 2009 18:18, 14 July 2009 01:26, 16 May 2009 13:09, 30 May 2009 13:11, 30 May 2009 13:13, 30 May 2009 13:27, 30 May 2009 13:32, 30 May 2009 13:35, 30 May 2009 00:56, 23 May 2009 01:29, 13 June 2009 23:27, 30 July 2009 22:50, 29 July 2009 00:34, 30 July 2009 02:40, 24 July 2009 01:07, 19 July 2009 18:45, 16 July 2009 02:51, 25 June 2009 20:23, 22 June 2009 19:17, 3 August 2009 22:40, 7 August 2009 02:37, 18 April 2009 04:49, 18 April 2009 12:48, 18 April 2009 19:42, 29 July 2009 02:39, 25 May 2009	23:25, 28 June 2009

From the last 8 arbcom decisions:

1. 3 year old edits Arcom rules on 28 May 2009 about edits which took place at 12 May 2006, 3 June 2006, etc., 1 March 2007, 5 April 2007, 9 April 2007, 13 April 2007
2. 8 month old edits Arbcom rules on 29 June 2009 on blocks which happened on October and November 2008, sanctioned editor also claimed these issues were "stale"
3. 1 year 6 month old editsArbcom rules on 14 June 2009 about edits in September 2008 to May 2009, January 2009, October 2008, and November 2008.
4. 7 month old edits Arbcom rules on 14 June 2009 about edits in November 2008, 3 September 2008 9 October 2008 etc.
5. 2 year old edits 26 June 2009 Seeyou case: "For more than three years, Seeyou...has edited Bates method and related articles in a disruptive fashion reflective of advocacy.", citing a section with a subsection that was from 2008 and 2007. Seeyou also argue that the evidence was "very old".[71]

I don't think I need to continue, as just the last 8 arbcom rulings show, there is no statute of limitations, "stale" requirement when it comes to disruptive behavior. I would appreciate if you all reconsider this position and strike the stale argument.

I think Mastcell, Connolley's biggest defender said it best in the Mattisse arbitration:

"There are definite, recurring patterns in...interactions which are highly problematic...we shouldn't belabor stale issues, but for the most part, the past has been prologue here. I think that past events are essential to understanding the pattern here, but of course they should be presented in a context which makes their ongoing relevance clear."[72]

Arbitration agreed with Mastcell, despite Fainites arguments about the information begin "old".[73] and restricted Mattisse.[74]

Ikip (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Stale?? See use of tools while involved during this case, against an IP, in my evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Ikip's comments about the A.K.Nole case fail to mention the independent reports of two ex-arbitrators - User:Charles Matthews and User:YellowMonkey - as well as several senior mathematics administrators. WMC was also well qualified to assess the nature and helpfulness of A.K.Nole's edits on the talk page of a mathematical article. A finding of the ANI thread was that A.K.Nole had been wikistalking me during my normal namespace editing, in this case the creation from scratch of a long and specialized graduate-level article. His comments on the article talk page - his first edits to any such article - were described as mathematically faux naif, that is barely at a pre-university level and unrelated to the content of the article. Similarly YellowMonkey confirmed that his copy-pasting of material written by me out of context into a physics stub was misjudged and had no place there. Ikip's evidence is as a result highly inaccurate. It is also completely irrelevant to this case.
• Shell Kinney has made a more general statement here (on this page, but too hard to find!!). She was in fact one of the admins who diagnosed the wikistalking. Mathsci (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

William M. Connolley is desysoped

1) For repeated abuse of this administrative powers, William M. Connolley is desysoped.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This looks like an editor importing very old disputes into this case in case he gets lucky and damages WMC. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Also, completely out of wack with the evidence of community support for his actions, including the ban of this very same case. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

History has clearly shown that William M. Connolley will continue to abuse his administrative powers. Everytime his abuses are ignored by the community, it makes editors feel like wikipedia has two classes of wikipedians: those who have to follow the rules, and those who don't. Ikip (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is acting outside the remit of this ArbCom case, possibly because of some grudge. Mathsci (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The evidence "justifying" this is stale and irrelevant, and a clerk should take a look. There has been no abuse of admin powers in this case. Seems to be a personal grudge. Verbal chat 11:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: WMC has used tools while involved (re an IP) even during this case. See my evidence. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That isn't on the contrary at all. This is still stale and irrelevant, even if I were to concede what you said was true. Verbal chat 13:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"There has been no abuse of admin powers in this case." - I respectfully disagree. See [75] and [76]. --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, of course. No foundation in reality, and would deprive Wikipedia of one of its most useful administrators. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Enric, the "very old disputes" argument has been completly debunked and destroyed above, I will not copy and paste this argument here. Connolley has a long history of administrative abuse. Ikip (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Stephen Bain

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Absolutely, and if I violate these principles, please, troutslap me or even block. --Abd (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: DRY William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Can we avoid principles which state the obvious like this, please? The links already give the communities views of these behaviours. Verbal chat 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. The code of conduct is one of the five pillars. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. In view of Abd's offer above, I wonder where unfounded accusations of cabalism fit along the spectrum of "assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Read the cabal claim carefully, SBHB, assuming good faith, and I'm confident that you will then be able to understand that there are no charges of bad faith involved in the cabal claim, only the naming of a negative collective effect that the individual editors may not be personally responsible for, unless they continue the behavior after the problem has become clear. --Abd (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

extended response by Abd to SBHB; frank but constructive because it points to the root of the problem.

I'm describing a social phenomenon that will look to an outside observer as a "cabal," and it has been so described in the media, and many editors recognize it immediately. And others don't, but that you don't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, maybe you are too close to it, you can't see the forest because you are a tree. No reasonable claim of harassment has been made here, and there are various forms of disruption and sometimes a small disruption avoids a larger one. RfAr is a large disruption and it is permitted because it can address even larger, widely-distributed disruptions, of deep and lasting effect. My edit to Talk:Cold fusion was a small tap. If a small tap causes a bridge to collapse, maybe the problem wasn't the tap. If that bridge had gone down with much damage, sure, problem. But what damage was done, compared to the long-term disruption under examination here? I can tell you what I was thinking when I made that edit: I was thinking about the sources, finding the old discussions to point to, keeping it brief, I'd left the ban behind, it was not on my mind at all. When I decided to set aside my voluntary self-ban, I set it aside. I certainly was not thinking about WMC, I'd done all that thinking two months earlier. I could not control how WMC would respond, maybe one of his friends would have warned him, such as your good self. It's not like what I did couldn't be seen coming! Consider the paradox here: your friends have spent weeks on these pages blaming me for everything from A to Z, and yet you were depending on me being perfectly well-behaved according to your own ideas of the rules? Did you not realize what would happen if I did not voluntarily "behave," -- you ridiculed the idea that it was voluntary -- if I instead relied on my own declared interpretation of banning policy, recusal policy, and my belief that the ban had expired early in July, and WMC did choose to block me in the middle of this blatant dispute between us? You were so busy reinforcing each other and ridiculing Abd, his suicidal RfAr, and his lunatic cabal claims, that you were unable to perceive the reality: you were not dominant here, it just looked that way, because the community is largely asleep, our mechanisms for identifying and fixing problems before they become big ones is primitive and undeveloped, often on the level of blaming disputes on individual editors and banning them, which is guaranteed to fail in the long run. This RfAr is not over, there could be surprises coming down the pike, but some very big ones already came down, eh? Ask yourself honestly, why could you not see the danger? Those of us who are left standing at the end of this must continue to cooperate for the benefit of the project. If we don't, eventually, the project and the community will chew us up and spit us out. I'd say it's time to move on. I'm prepared to. Are you? Or are you going to spend the next six months "whinging" (as was so easily said about me) about how unfair this all was? --Abd (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it to SBHB to make any comment to the above, except I wanted to say that I find the statement "I certainly was not thinking about WMC, I'd done all that thinking two months earlier" to be disingenuous at best, given that you made it very clear that you were thinking of WMC's response before you made the edit. - Bilby (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support --GoRight (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages

2) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. I do believe that ArbComm should rapidly respond where clerk action is inadequate, for whatever reason, to maintain compliance with this. If incivility and "strident rhetoric" is allowed, it generates similar response, hence strict enforcement is called for. Where there is controversy over a clerk decision, there should be quick ArbComm confirmation or reversal of the clerk's decision. (I assume that arbitrators would vote on a procedural issue without debate, rapidly, because debate over disruption defeats the very purpose of maintaining order.) --Abd (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the conduct of this case by arbcomm could be considered expiditious; and well-informed is looking dubious at the point; fair also appears in doubt. More motherhood-and-apple-pie that you're not really taking seriously, though it would be good if you did William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, but unsure exactly what would be included in "strident rhetoric" and suggest it may be a little too broad and could perhaps be reworded. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, but I wish this principle were actually taken seriously enough to have teeth. MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - it is all in the interpretation, and yes Coppertwig, a broader view is needed. Think of strident rhetoric as relating to a battlefield mentality. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

SupportBut I have to agree with MastCell, it needs teeth. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support and a cookie for the clerk. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bans

3) A ban is a formal revocation of a user's editing privileges on Wikipedia, or on a page or group of pages within Wikipedia. A ban may be of fixed or of indefinite duration.

Bans may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, by administrators implementing discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee, or by the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ok, in general but the wording might need to be tweaked to make it more complete. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This case has established that some policies and procedures in this area are not clear and it would be better if they were. Therefore, see my remedy proposal below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

No; partly per Boris William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No, because it goes against current practice where admins can de-facto ban editors from pages to stop disruption. This principle is problematic because it will just get used to try to deslegitimaze WMC's ban, which was backed unequivocally by the community. At most, it should be accompanied by principle Declaration and enforcement of "ban"s. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. There is another kind of ban, an administrative ban, declared by a single administrator, but mischief has been caused by calling it a "ban," which then causes it to be confused with the three kinds of bans named, but enforcement standards are different. An administrator cannot accomplish through a ban what the administrator could not legitimately accomplish with a block. Beetstra, below, has confused a warning about disruptive edits with a ban. There is no standard warning for "If you edit [this article] you will be blocked." A vandalism warning is different from a page ban because editing a page, except with vandalism, is not "vandalizing" it. Vandalism is disruption. We allow (but do not necessarily require) blocks for non-disruptive edits wherever ban enforcement is generally delegated to the community, in order to make enforcement by editors unfamiliar with the causes simple. We should not allow a single administrator, or even a small number, to create a ban to be automatically enforced by other administrators, that is a dangerous invitation to abuse, requiring significant disruption to undo. We already have an example of this with the Scibaby ban (created by two involved administrators, WMC and Raul654), we don't need more. --Abd (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

..and, although they are not commonly called 'bans', by any editor by issuing e.g. a level 4 warning, e.g {{uw-vandalism4}}: "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.", which effectively bans the editor from vandalising edits (and how is that different from 'I am banning you from Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Um, vandalism is already banned, for everyone, all the time. Editing Cold fusion is not. That's the difference. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, so is edit warring, giving undue weight, &c. &c. And then telling someone not to edit one certain page, effectively telling them to stop is a solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support except that perhaps bans by Jimmy Wales and by the Foundation would also need to be mentioned; it's unclear whether this principle is intended as an exhaustive list. Other than that, it's a good principle, congruent with WP:BAN policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's think this through. It's well established that admins can impose blocks without prior consultation; we see that every day. Now you're saying that page bans -- a lesser sanction -- require a greater degree of consensus. If this decision goes through, you're telling admins that applying nuanced and less restrictive measures like page bans will require extensive efforts for community justification beforehand, whereas it's simpler just to hit the block button. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins can still warn, e.g. "if you revert one more time I'll block you," and can still negotiate with the user for a voluntary ban instead of a block. However, allowing admins to just arbitrarily impose rules would give admins too much power. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

And how, Coppertwig, is 'I am banning you from Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion' different from 'If you edit Cold fusion or talk:Cold fusion again, I will block you', except for that wikilawyering now allows for saying 'this is not part of the banning policy, so no, you can't say that, and hence, there is no ban'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two declarations are equivalent, and in my opinion either statement amounts to a misuse of admin tools: a threat to use tools in response to non-disruptive edits. Note the distinction I make here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, they are equivalent. And no, they are also equivalent to "If you edit Cold fusion or Talk:Cold fusion again, you will be blocked", and "do not add that spam link again, or you will be blocked". And if you read the policy, having warned an editor does not involve the admin so he can't block the editor anymore. And if disallowing someone to edit is the same as disallowing someone to insert a spam link again (which it practically is!), then it is simple: William M. Connolley said to Abd that he was not to edit Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion anymore, and that he therefore could be blocked. And even while William M. Connolley gave this final warning himself, William M. Connolley was certainly not involved, and was certainly allowed to block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Simply stating that edits allowed by policy are the same thing as edits disallowed by policy does not make it so. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Not only do we allow admins the right to block, we also allow them to do page protection. We also prefer a lesser to a stronger measure, if sufficiently effective. In this case, talk:Cold fusion needed protection from just two editors, and that's exactly what William applied. And it worked well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Poorly conceived wikilawyer-bait. I assume this is intended to supplant and overturn current practice, under which admins can and do impose page bans on their own authority (subject to review on the noticeboards). Regardless of its intent, that will be its effect. Removing one of the few "soft" options available to admins will increase reliance on blunt instruments like blocks, which I think will be a net negative - but the most distressing aspect is that I don't see evidence that any real thought has been given to the consequences of such a finding, or to the fact that it overturns current practices on the basis of a single case in which the ban in question was roundly supported by the community. MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly no expert, but it seems to me that it is not common practice from admins to issue blocks at their own whim, without warning, and for INITIAL durations of a month or more. I initially supported WMC's actions as a temporary measure for a cooling off period. I object to his being able to arbitrarily extend that also at his whim. Is it common practice for blocks to be managed in this way? If so that is appalling and it should be stopped. If not and the practices for blocks are more sanely managed then I think that far preferable even if it is blunt to being held to the mercy of one administrator's whims. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Poorly worded and out of touch with current practice. While there are ArbCom sanctions to cover the vast majority of problematic areas, they are not yet universal - there are times an admin will decide on a page ban, rather than a block as a way to minimize disruption without completely cutting the editor off Wikipedia. Shell ^babelfish 06:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Administrators have been using editor banning to prevent disruptions for quite sometime now. This kind of behavior should be encouraged. I think that this kind of banning though needs community back up when it first gets questioned by the editor to prevent gaming. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the second sentence basically per MastCell; as I stated above, the power to block includes lesser remedies. It might be desirable that any such bans be accompanied by instructions for posting to the appropriate noticeboad for review, as {{unblock}} is not really appropriate to this situation. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Community bans

4) A community ban can originate from a consensus among uninvolved users during a discussion in an appropriate venue, such as the administrators' noticeboard. Alternatively, if an administrator has blocked a user, and a discussion of that block among uninvolved users in an appropriate venue reaches a consensus not to unblock the user, then the user may be considered banned for the duration of the block (unless the consensus is to alter the duration).

The possibility that a community ban may result from a consensus not to reverse a block does not absolve administrators of the obligation to exercise the blocking tool only in accordance with the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Further detail on the above. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. This includes the two ways that Community bans happen.FloNight♥♥♥ 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That's better wording that the one above. It still missed that involved editors may have valid complaints (I see that Dirk also thought of this), so it can be wikilawyered that there were involved editors participating in the discussion, as it was wikilawyered about the ban review in ANI. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Oppose I see that the "uninvolved editors" bit is going to be wikilawyered to hell and back, the ban in this case is a topic ban not a full ban, and the ban was endorsed at ANI so the principle doesn't apply here. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support as descriptive of actual practice; however, there is a problem. The determination of "uninvolved" can be complex and, as the recent ban of NYScholar shows, involvement is routinely disregarded, particularly on the noticeboards; I've never seen involvement explicitly considered in a ban close. I'd suggest that a noticeboard ban, especially, be considered an administrative ban, which may allow more flexibility, it's tricky to undo a community ban without going to ArbComm, unless the closing administrator takes responsibility for ongoing determinations such as replacing, say, a site ban with specific restrictions, supervised mentoring, etc., as well as determining when a ban ends. If there was a consensus of uninvolved editors to ban, it may take such a consensus to lift the ban. Gaining a true consensus of uninvolved editors can be difficult, because it is mostly involved editors who are exercised to comment, so if we are going to be so disruptive as to attract enough neutral editors, we might as well run an RfC first. When an admin closes with a statement that this wasn't his or her decision, but the community's decision, but then does not consider involvement, we have lost the individual responsibility for decisions that is at the core of most Wikipedia process. I am concerned about "community bans" where dispute resolution process was not followed. Our process allows great flexibility, but we should notice where that flexibility starts having negative effects. --Abd (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, since irrelevant to the current case. If you want to see the kind of wikilawyering you'll get if you pass this kind of stuff, see Abd's comments above William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

this was off-topic here, obviously I'm way too tired.... comment by Abd

I'm pretty sure that my position on bans has not been understood. I support the right of administrators to unilaterally declare a ban, based on an expectation of disruptive edits. Under a few transient conditions it's even possible that such a ban can be declared and a non-disruptive edit considered a violation; an example is before us. I'm currently banned by Rlevse, since shortly after the edit to Talk:Cold fusion because the very fact of my making an edit there is obviously disruptive at this time. But that is only pending resolution here; that ban will be lifted, I assume, unless there is a remedy passed to ban me. And, while IAR can justify just about anything under some circumstances, that it is an arbitrator declaring that ban is a factor. Where I part company with the strident voices of some administrators here is that a unilaterally declared ban ordinarily creates no right to block for a non-disruptive edit. In other words, the "administrative ban" is really a warning that the admin considers the editor's general pattern of behavior to be disruptive. To be truly helpful, the admin should say why and how, but it might not always be practical. And if the admin blocks for some subtle behavior that nobody else will see, well, the admin had better be prepared, if necessary, to justify it -- or should promptly recuse and step out of the way. Because of the refrain I see below of "This will be wikilawyered by every agenda account," I need to remind editors that "recuse" does not mean "unblock." I do think that ArbComm should assist the community in coming up with better descriptions of what recusal policy actually requires and what it does not require; I made one small effort here to address it with what is commonly routine in analogous situations: recusal upon request, no reason needed. Properly understood and used, it could avoid much unnecessary disruption, and I've seen fast recusal do exactly that. --Abd (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• This finding, if adopted as written, will be cited by every tendentious agenda account trying to wikilawyer their way out of a reasonable sanction. But whatever. My bigger concern is that it doesn't address the realities of these situations. Most noticeboard discussions of blocks/bans fail to reach any consensus whatsoever. Usually, the people involved in the dispute reiterate their positions at great length; a few people who have axes to grind for or against the banned user show up to fulminate; and a lone uninvolved editor/admin comments and then unwatchlists the discussion. That's the roadmap. Is that "consensus not to unblock"?

  I'd rather this finding reflect current realities and best practices; at the very least, it needs to address the "default" position if noticeboard discussion fails to reach a "consensus" on the block one way or the other. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We do it for AfD; we can do it for bans. A closing admin can decide one way or another. I think banning an editor should involve at least as much process as deleting a page (with blocking of vandals being equivalent to CSD). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Bans should be considered serious matters, and as such they should require substantial support. Unless a CLEAR consensus of UNINVOLVED editors can ACTUALLY be shown in support of a ban the default position should be that the ban does not exist. Any other position invites abuse, IMHO. YMMV. --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Sounds reasonable and in accordance with my understanding of policy and practice. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, "consensus among uninvolved users " says that a) involved users are not allowed to be part of the opinion, and b) will again be wikilawyered into 'who is uninvolved and egligable to discuss here'. Yet those are the ones who know about the situation, and have followed it. These editors may not be actionable, if they are involved, but that still needs to be determined before the problem arises, as everyone in the discussion becomes involved in the situation, and hence would not be uninvolved anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - While this appears accurate, the problem is that it relates to a site ban, not a topic ban. This case is about a topic ban (with a very narrowly defined topic), and thus the issue of blocks (indef or otherwise) is not relevant, except insofar as they are applied for violations of the ban. The purpose of a topic ban must be to provide a more narrowly focused response than a full block or site ban. Is that not why ArbCom enacts them? To provide a solution that doesn't involve removing people from Wikipedia completely?

In response to Abd above, what then is a ban if not a statement that you should not be involved with the topic? Abd seems to be interpreting it as a final warning, which clearly is not the intent. A ban states that, for the duration of the ban, the editor is not to edit the page. Any edits, be they good, bad, or self-reverted, are a violation of the ban. If there is discretion, it is in how that violation is responded to. - Bilby (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• This proposed principle seems to have been designed specifically to exclude the community ban that emerged from Connolley's declaration banning Hipocrite and Abd. As such it's bad framing because it unnecessarily constrains the way in which a community ban can emerge, and furthermore seems to be specifically targeted so as to enable a bogus finding of fact about the community ban on Abd and Hipocrite. --TS 04:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Implementation of discretionary sanctions

5) An administrator taking any action against a user (such as applying a block) in the course of implementing discretionary sanctions must always identify that they are taking the action in the course of implementing those discretionary sanctions. Moreover, unless a user is known to be aware of any discretionary sanctions (if, for example, they were a party to the arbitration case in which the sanctions were imposed), an administrator should warn the user of the existence of the discretionary sanctions before taking any action against that user in the course of implementing them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's been suggested that there were discretionary sanctions available to William M. Connolley in this situation, but they were not claimed at the time to be the basis for the purported ban. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Not clear why this is relevant to the case. I was not aware of the DS's available when I imposed the ban. I've said explicitly on my talk page that I did not use them to construct the ban William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this case. WMC didn't apply any DS, and it's doubtful that we can extend pseudoscience's DS to cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Moot for this case, agreeing with my fellow parties. The principle is sound, though. --Abd (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support at least the first part. Warnings are a good idea: the goal of enforcement is to get users to follow the expected standards, not to punish or block. Arbcom has the right to define how its own sanctions are applied. The committee might want to include a clause such as "unless the Committee explicitly states that the action can be done without warning", to allow for flexibility (or to prevent contradictions). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevance to this case: I, for one, wondered whether WMC's purported ban was based on discretionary sanctions, perhaps ones I wasn't aware of. Passing this remedy would save time by making it obvious when no DS is being applied (especially with admins who "deflect" questions). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be yet another misguided attempt to deny that a community ban emerged. --TS 04:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of administrative tools in a dispute

6) An administrator must not use their administrative tools to further their position in a dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Perfectly happy with the principle, but since everyone agrees with it, it appears pointless. DRY. Certainly irrelevant to the current kerfuffle William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice and good, but WMC was not furthering his position in a dispute, so why should this even appear in the case. I see this as another irrelevant principle that risks being wikilawyered to death. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Of course. This case is about a long-term dispute with WMC over his use of administrative tools; further, there are "positions" that are not about specific article content, but rather about behavioral guidelines and what is allowed and not allowed, as well as personal disputes. In this case, there is evidence that WMC disagrees with me on recusal policy and on other issues, such as the meaning and determination process for NPOV, the ready and easy blocking of editors based on "POV-pushing," the role of discussion and the depth of appropriate discussion on article talk pages, and so forth, as well as, historically, my exposure of what had actually happened behind RfC/GoRight, an RfC filed by Raul654 and certified by WMC, and my confrontation of JzG over the blacklisting of cold fusion web sites when he was heavily involved with the article. --Abd (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Irrelevant. Why do we need to state something which is both obvious and not in dispute? Verbal chat 21:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. This expresses policy, and is central to the issue of this case. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

What? Where did William M. Connolley do this? He enforced bans, he did not block Abd so Abd could not answer a dispute anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - --GoRight (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

7) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is a purported topic ban applied to Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and several associated disputes, in relation to editorial disputes on the cold fusion article.

The cold fusion article was also the locus of dispute in the cold fusion arbitration in December 2008.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Looks appropiate and neutral. (do you really need to say "purported"?) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Change to "article and talk page". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support with correction. This was explicitly not a topic ban, it was a page ban, from the article and its talk page only. "Purported" does not presuppose illegitimacy, nor does "alleged" or "attempted" or "declared," which might be the most neutral. "A ban of Abd from editing Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion declared by WMC."

Response to Shell. Actually, you are correct. The dispute, on the face, was not about editing the article, although it arose at the point where I'd turned from discussion to actual article editing, having come to a point where I could sense ultimate consensus and begin to advance it. It's actually not clear what the dispute was about, though walls of text have been created claiming that it was about walls of text. "Several associated disputes" covers it. --Abd (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: inaccurate. The principle problem was on the talk page, as many people have said. There was nothing "purported" about the ban, from a reality-based viewpoint; evidence of this is my block of Abd, if nothing else. Also, it seems odd to call this a topic ban (as others have noticed): Abd was free to edit cold-fusion related articles and participate in the late-lamented CF mediation William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Poor wording. "Purported" pre-supposes the ban was illegitimate. "Editorial disputes" implies a content dispute between Abd and WMC. Shell ^babelfish 06:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a "topic ban." It was a ban from Cold fusion and its talk page. That you can't even get such a basic point correct confirms my belief that you're not actually reading the evidence before you write this stuff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate, per SBHB; insufficient. The locus of the dispute is Abd's ongoing inability to effectively resolve disputes with large numbers of other Wikipedia editors, and persistent misuse of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. The kerfuffle at cold fusion is only one symptom of this pattern of disruptive misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Background

Recent disputes

2) In May 2009, Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Abd were involved in an edit war on cold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&offset=20090523000000&limit=16&action=history) leading William M. Connolley to protect the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=William+M.+Connolley&page=Cold+fusion&year=2009&month=5&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1).

On 31 May and 1 June 2009, edit warring on cold fusion involving a number of users (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&offset=20090602000000&limit=28&action=history) led Causa sui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to protect the page for two weeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Causa_sui&page=Cold+fusion&year=2009&month=6&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. The protection by WMC on May 21 was not controversial and the time was used to work on consensus for two more changes. I asserted those on Jun 1 and Hipocrite, who had not participated in the discussion (I should confirm this), reverted and edit warring began. I did not do any reverts on that day. Hipocrite requested protection, then immediately edited the lede to insert his POV about cold fusion, he knew it would not be accepted, and knowing that protection, if his report was accepted, would be coming down. Thus he set up the conditions that required a rapid judgment of a version to revert to under protection. The gaming of RfPP is an important element in this sequence. I was not acting disruptively, he was. 06:58, 10 August 2009 Abd (talk) Because I had failed to sign, the following unsigned note was added by WMC: — Preceding unsigned comment added by not I'm not going to look back into the page history to work out who this might be, but guessing from the length and the total denial of responsibility, I'd finger Abd (talk • contribs) }

Accurate but uninteresting William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

William M. Connolley's reversion

3) On 5 June, William M. Connolley edited through protection on cold fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=294668368&oldid=293649270), reverting to a version from three weeks earlier (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=294668368&oldid=289894290). This course of action had been proposed by GoRight on the talk page (Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_33#A_simple_proposal.3F).

At the time there were multiple active discussions on talk:cold fusion concerning the state of the article, including multiple suggestions to revert to earlier versions of the article, but there was disagreement and confusion over the form of the discussions taking place, and there was no consensus on what course of action to take with respect to the article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct --Enric Naval (talk) 02:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree -- partially. There was visible unanimity on Talk that (1) the version as protected was not acceptable, and (2) there was universal support -- except for Woonpton, who deleted her !vote -- for the versions of May 21 and May 31, with more than twice as much expressed acceptance for both than what stood for May 14, the version chosen by WMC. His edit did improve the article over the version as protected, but his edit summary showed that he expected his action to be controversial. --Abd (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

extended discussion by Abd.

The GoRight proposal was not actually a support of that version, he'd intended simply to start discussion, as he later stated. WMC was "amused" at accepting a suggestion from GoRight. The only other support for this version had come from Hipocrite, whose content position was, in fact, more favored by it; it was the result of weeks of reversion by Hipocrite. It's all basically true, though, except for one thing. There was an apparent consensus that the version as protected was highly undesirable, not even Hipocrite supported that version in his comments. There was also complete agreement among the standing comments that the versions of May 21 (as protected then) or May 31 (just before edit warring began and before my insertions of the two sections) were acceptable. That this wasn't blatantly obvious was due to the disruption involved in a second poll being started to ask the same question. In starting that poll, Hipocrite had asked about May 21 and May 31. My poll was open, inviting editors to suggest any version, and to rate any or all of them. So I added May 21 and May 31 to my poll, and noted the approval of them by Hipocrite and Verbal, so that it could all be seen in one place as a summary. There was disagreement over how I did this, all of which could have been easily fixed or resolved through ordinary process. The goal was to quickly detect consensus, not to actually make a decision with a poll or polls, and consensus was, in fact, detected, and it was later confirmed with additional participation. It's true that a "course of action" had not been determined, but it had become obvious, in fact, and had I not been banned, I'd have been setting up a request for edit under protection; such a request doesn't have to be a final decision, and five editors approving of a particular version, including both alleged edit warriors (I hadn't edit warred June 1, but Hipocrite did claim that I had), was probably adequate; within a few days we had more. No opposition was expressed to those two versions, except by Woonpton, who supported a reversion back many months to a version with no other support from anyone except a comment that led me to add it to the poll from Kirk shanahan, a COI editor and strong cold fusion skeptic, and she had removed her !vote and comment; but even if it had been left, it would not have altered the consensus. So how to word this simply? It's also clear that there was no consensus for May 14, actually very little support, and WMC's edit summary showed that he expected it to be controversial. This was not a proper edit under protection, but the good thing that can be said about it is that it was better than the version as protected, everyone who expressed an opinion on that agreed. In other words, though WMC expected it to be controversial, and did not attend to or respect the views that had been expressed about the possibilities, his edit did improve the article. --Abd (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agree - Bilby (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Purported topic bans

4) On 6 June, William M. Connolley purported to impose topic bans on Hipocrite and Abd from cold fusion and its talk page, for an indefinite duration "of approximately one month, during which time we'll see if a stable version developes [sic]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=294832717&oldid=294831592). He then removed the full protection on the article and replaced it with semi-protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=William+M.+Connolley&page=Cold+fusion&year=2009&month=6&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1).

William M. Connolley did not purport to ban Hipocrite and Abd on the basis of any discretionary sanctions, and was not implementing any community consensus, and as such had no authority to impose any ban.

A subsequent administrators' incidents noticeboard discussion on 11 and 12 June (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#need_review_of_the_topic_ban_of_two_editors_from_Cold_Fusion) approved a topic ban on Abd from cold fusion and its talk page for one month.

The purported topic ban as against Hipocrite was conditionally removed by William M. Connolley on 24 June (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipocrite&diff=298452928&oldid=298228382).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Disagree, oddly enough. There was no purported ban, there was a clearly functioning ban, as reality shows. Nor is it true that bans can only be imposed on the basis of DS or CC only. A minor error amongst the major: I'm not sure what the conditions were that I imposed on revoking H's ban. Are you? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and there was no community ban superceding my ban. Hermstein, regrettably, won't come here and talk. But you should read his comments ending with this [77]: for example I didn't realize at the time that there would be any dispute over the duration of the ban nor whether its original imposition was valid, and I did not intend to make any statement on either of those issues William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern has now made some clarifications [78][79]. You should add something like "the closer admin later said that he didn't intend to set the duration of the ban and has released responsability for it".

As for "not implementing any community consensus", this plain ignores the editors in Talk:Cold fusion that were shouting for Abd's ban from the page, not to mention the support for a topic ban at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Outside_view_by_Spartaz. Last time I checked ANI was not the community, it was just a convenient place to gather people, and wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so we don't request that consensus is valid only if it's gathered at a noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, oddly enough. While administrators may "ban," it's a different animal than the three accepted bans, it is really just a general warning, it creates no right to block for "ban violation," but only for disruptive editing. Enric Naval is one of the few editors who were "shouting for Abd's ban from the page," and he'd been shouting for a long time. These editors have had a view of "reality" which is all their own. These same editors claimed I was "beating a dead horse" with the JzG affair, and they claimed I should have been banned then, as well. --Abd (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Contains several clear errors, per WMC above. Verbal chat 21:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• This finding overturns and outlaws current practices on admin-imposed pagebans at a stroke, on the basis of a single case in which the correct outcome was actually achieved. While I find Wikipedia politics increasingly incomprehensible in general, this stands out as a particularly counterproductive and ill-conceived idea. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• "and as such had no authority to impose any ban.", every user can 'ban' others from performing vandalism or spamming (per the warning templates), Administrators can protect pages, and block users (which are certainly stronger measures than saying to one or two editors "don't edit this page again" (or, as it was described here 'I am banning you from Cold fusion and talk:Cold fusion')), but administrators (or maybe even, editors), don't have the authority to say 'I am banning you from this page'. The stronger measures have way more collateral damage, or disable the blocked editor to interact with the community to solve the dispute (except on their own talkpage), and I would strongly suggest that the Arbitration Committee would encourage such a solution, not condemn it.

To make it even sadder, the ban, of which is said here that William M. Connolley was not authorised to impose it, was endorsed by the community. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• I asked this elsewhere as well, but I'd add it here. Stephen Bain is here stating "and as such had no authority to impose any ban". We have the text "This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, , as you did to Talk:Cold fusion, you will be blocked from editing." (from {{uw-generic4|Talk:Cold fusion}}) and from the linked Wikipedia:Disruptive editing we see: "their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article". The wording that WMC used "Polls are boring and inconclusive, especially when people start arguing over which is valid. The solution which will please no-one is: User:Hipocrite and User:Abd are both banned from editing cold fusion...". For me, there is no fundamental difference between the wording used by WMC, and the wording in the template. Is it really only in the wording? One question could remain, was it 'it often prevent[ing] other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article'? Were the edits disruptive? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, well I guess this explains the earlier wording. Wrong - horribly, horribly wrong. Whether or not a ban was appropriate in this case may be up for debate (though the community appeared to uphold it) but whether or not admins, in current practice, issue page bans to avoid disruption and as a less stringent option than full blocks isn't. Also, whether or not there was community consensus for this ban before or after seems to be mistaken - there appears to be wide support on both ends. Shell ^babelfish 06:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah. Obviously, banning Abd from cold fusion and its talk page (which, for God's sake, is not a "topic ban") was a reasonable action; it received widespread community support when submitted for review after the fact. The quibble here seems to be that WMC imposed a ban which was subsequently ratified by the community, rather than going to a noticeboard first. If Wikipedia were a bureaucracy, this would form a compelling basis for a case.

  I really can't shake the feeling that these findings are deeply out of touch. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, but it seems to me that Thatcher, Shell, and myself - all of whom actually try (or used to try, in my case) to resolve difficult disputes - have said we've used this approach successfully, and that it's a reasonable and useful tool. I can understand (maybe) taking issue with WMC's ban of Abd, but I cannot for the life of me understand the sweeping nature of these findings. They overturn a standard practice which has been used repeatedly and successfully and which has never, to my knowledge, seriously been questioned before. I just want some kind of indication that you (the Committee) are aware of what you're doing here, because what I've seen so far hasn't convinced me. If you really mean to proscribe this administrative approach, then I can't do anything except protest, but can you at least clarify that you've thought this through? MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• This finding does not accurately reflect current practice. I have imposed both single-page and topic bans single-handedly on editors in an effort to curtail disruption, often as a less-onerous sanction than a full block. If the ArbCom has decided to legislate from the bench on this point, someone should probably tell the admins. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First block of Abd

5) On 15 June, Abd edited cold fusion to adjust a citation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=296521558&oldid=296357886&diffonly=1) and immediately self-reverted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_fusion&diff=296521642&oldid=296521558&diffonly=1) with the edit summary "per ban". Two hours later, William M. Connolley blocked Abd for 24 hours for violating the topic ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=William+M.+Connolley&page=User%3AAbd&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=).

As Abd was under a community topic ban at this point, he was liable, under the blocking policy, to be blocked for any edit made in violation of that ban. However, given the dispute between Abd and William M. Connolley about the latter's ability to unilaterally apply a topic ban, William M. Connolley should not have taken any enforcement action under the community ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No, again you've lost touch with reality. I blocked Abd under the ban I imposed. Your definition of "involvement" used above would unhelpfully paralyse meaningful admin action in difficult cases and is deeply unwise William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Abd made a clear and purposeful violation of the ban in order to test its limits and he even announced it and all. We are not going to start requesting uninvolved admins even for such cases. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, dammit, don't turn it into one. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. My belief is that a neutral administrator would have been unlikely to block for that edit. In the ScienceApology case, the community was radically unwilling to block SA for harmless edits. However, I raised the point that these harmless edits were not harmless, because they complicated ban enforcement. Hence I suggested self-reversion as a way to allow harmless edits without complicating enforcement. A self-reverted pair of edits is a null edit, it is an efficient suggestion, easily ignored or implemented (and SA was allowed to edit Talk; in my case, I was not topic banned, I was still involved with the topic (at mediation in particular), so I had "business" with the article). Nobody objected to self-reversion then, but it was moot for SA because his purpose was actually disruption. I did not anticipate that WMC would block me for that edit, I was truly surprised. This is very different from my edit yesterday, which was in direct confrontation with his ban, I was not surprised to be blocked, I know how bold WMC is, he's very open and frank, it's one of his excellent qualities. With the first block, I was under a community ban and I had accepted that ban and agreed to refrain from "editing" the pages. So I could, indeed, be blocked, but a neutral admin should have made the actual decision. We are not a bureaucracy, but we also have restrictions on what administrators can do. Note the contradiction in the arguments presented: we are not a bureaucracy, i.e., not rule-bound, but a ban is a ban, period. In fact, the community yawned when SA made spelling corrections in direct defiance of a topic ban, and he wasn't blocked for those corrections, he was blocked for manifest and explicit disruptive intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This just has to be fairly clear proof that nobody is bothering to read this stuff or someone would have noticed by now that this was unsigned (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

Comment diff: "If I edit the article or its Talk page, I can be blocked, by any administrator desiring to enforce the ban, with no warning, ....", 12 June 2009. Any admin. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: WMC's comment above "would unhelpfully paralyse meaningful admin action in difficult cases": could perhaps be restated as "would make it very difficult to find an admin willing to block for a clearly harmless edit". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment This mixes up a reasonable description of the affair with an unjustified (and wrong) opinion. We have long held that administrative action by an admin against an editor does not make the admin "involved", and neither does whining of the editor, even if he whines to ArbCom. The block was provoked, and rightfully delivered. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of involvement do not make an admin involved, and that is all we have here. Unless you are seriously suggesting that an admin taking admin actions is therefore involved and shouldn't take those actions... Verbal chat 21:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to see ArbCom go a single case or two without adding yet another inconsistent and mutually contradictory definition of "involvement" to the wikilawyer's lexicon. Do those of you who remember what it's like to administrate difficult areas of the project understand my concern? It makes a difficult job harder to know that one is liable to second-guessing according to ever-changing and arbitrary standards. The result is that no one steps up, these disputes fester and become intractable, and they end up here. Regardless of the specifics of this case, which I'm not arguing here, please don't make a bad and confusing situation even worse. Instead, take the time to harmonize the numerous definitions of involvement which you've helped create. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Editors dispute their blocks/bans/sanctions all the time; this does not make the administrator who issued it "involved". Shell ^babelfish 06:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - at the moment, the only evidence of any note suggesting that WMC was involved is the claims of a cabal, and they are shakey at best (as per below). WMC's involvement in the first block consists of declaring that Abd was topic banned and then, later, blocking him for violating that ban. If the first action is acccepted (and, if nothing else, the community ban was) then the second is a simple admin action that follows along from the first. The second block is a different matter. - Bilby (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Per Bilby, WMC imposed the ban, Abd violated the ban, WMC blocked persuant to the terms he had imposed. This Warning -> Violation -> Block paradigm is very much standard process. The community further endorsed WMC's ban as legitimate. This wasn't a matter requiring nuanced judgement or calling for recusal; Abd had deliberately chosen to violate the ban. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Enric Naval said "Abd made a clear and purposeful violation of the ban in order to test its limits": I believe this is incorrect. Due to the earlier discussions after ScienceApologist made spelling corrections, and discussions of self-reversion, Abd believed that such edits had been approved by the community and were not ban violations. He was not attempting to test or violate the ban. He was just trying to fix a ref link in a way he thought was allowed. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's statement that administrative bans are merely warnings which he can disregard if he so chooses [80] undercuts your claims that it wasn't a purposesful attempt to test the limits. Raul654 (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because at that time he was under a one-month community page ban which he had acknowledged and stated intention of respecting. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He acknowledged the community ban and stated his intention to respect it, and then violated it. Later, he violated WMC's administrative ban, claiming that bans are warnings which he can choose to ignore. It's not really difficult to tell, based on his actions, which of his two statements he actually believes to be true, and which statement was made in order to deceive people. Raul654 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've replied here. Raul654 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"given the dispute between Abd and William M. Connolley about the latter's ability to unilaterally apply a topic ban". So if you pass a sanction on someone and they disagree with it, that makes you "involved?" No, that would be silly. --TS 04:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Conduct during this case and during the request for arbitration

Edit-warring on the request for arbitration

5) On 14 July, Abd, Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and William M. Connolley edit-warred on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case over the list of parties to the request for arbitration that resulted in this case: Abd, Mathsci (with uncivil edit summary), Abd, Mathsci, Abd, William M. Connolley.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You've forgotten User:Rootology - is he of no importance? Substance: yes, we were edit warring. Abd was scatter-shotting people into this case in an effort to muddy the waters; I was (correctly as it turned out) removing them. Abd's "clarification" is pathetic excuse-making William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Even though my restoration of Mathsci's name to the list of parties was an error, after it had been removed by Mathsci, it had the effect of a single revert. That was not repeated. As to Rootology, yes, perhaps that should be mentioned. When I added the name of Hipocrite to the list of parties, I notified Hipocrite, as I notified all the parties I added. WMC reverted the notice to Hipocrite. Rootology reverted him, WMC reverted Rootology. Rootology retired within hours.... No, the removal was not necessarily "correct," but was, rather, to use the technical term, silly as hell. I didn't edit war over it because I don't edit war over anything -- May 21 stands out as a radical departure from my usual practice, caused by quite unusual conditions -- but especially not over moot points. They had been notified and that was enough. "Pathetic?" I'll say no more. --Abd (talk) 07:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Clarification: Abd has explained that he did not intend to editwar, did not realize others were editing and re-added a name only because he thought he had left it out of the first edit by mistake. [81] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment In his response to my initial statement on the request page Abd wrote "I decided not to make this RfAr cover specific Fringe science issues; had I done so, Mathsci would have been a party, along with as many as a dozen others." I explain 2 days later why I should not be added as a party. So Abd adds me with the edit summary "okay, Mathsci insists". I remove my name twice (the "edit warring"), contacting Casliber and Newyorkbrad by email after the first removal. I apologize to the the clerk AGK by email, later clarified on our two user talk pages, as soon he gives me a warning about ArbCom rules. [82][83] I apologize here again for this lapse, even if provoked. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Edit warring isn't good though all involved seem to have stopped and apologized once warned. Shell ^babelfish 06:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments of other editors and edit-warring on case pages

6) On 21 July, William M. Connolley removed a comment by Abd from the workshop with the edit summary "rm poorly indendted rambling junk. put it in your own bit" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=303302951&diffonly=1). After it was restored, and after being advised to contact a clerk, he edit-warred to remove it twice more (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=303307381&diffonly=1, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop&diff=next&oldid=303316286&diffonly=1).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. I thought he hit 4RR there, maybe I counted wrong. WMC seems to have been confused about what section he was editing?

Yes, I can count and you can't. Unfortunately Abd also writes poorly indented rambling junk which needs to be removed. However, "after it was restored" is just a teensy bit coy... how did it get restored? Oh look: [84] - now where does that name crop up again? Oh look, and again [85] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Bad form, no question. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerks are there to help with this sort of thing; edit warring is right out. Shell ^babelfish 06:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom cases are part of dispute resolution - just because flare-ups are expected does not mean they should be condoned. Also, it might be better to state simply removed it twice more rather than edit-warred to remove it twice more. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Second block of Abd

7) Following the expiration of the topic ban against him, Abd voluntarily submitted to an extension of that ban. On 8 August, he withdrew this submission, and on 9 August made an edit to Talk:cold fusion. William M. Connolley then reverted Abd, and blocked him for 24 hours, with the action summary "Violation of ban at t:Cold Fusion". On Abd's talk page, William M. Connolley said:

"I've blocked you for 24h for violation of the ban, and reverted your edit. If you want to edit there, you need to get someone other than yourself to overturn the ban. You could, for example, ask for an injunction at the Arbcomm case - that would be a fairly obvious remedy. Or you could have asked me. But instead you chose to test the limits; well, now you know".

All of these actions took place during this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Truly one of the more bizarre things I have seen. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Following the expiration of the topic ban against him, Abd voluntarily submitted to an extension of that ban - completely baffled by this one; bears no relation to reality at all William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The ban was still standing, Abd was perfectly aware, Abd had already defied the ban and he was now defying the ban to test WMC's limits. I'll say that WMC was entramped and he fell in the trap head-first. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. (Except generic problem: page ban not topic ban, it's important with some aspects of this.) Actually, knowing WMC, this was quite predictable. WMC was insisting that his ban was very real, it existed, and he had the right to maintain it, and he could prove it, and his friends were singing in the chorus. The way I think: "He can prove it? We could argue about this for a long time, or we could resolve it very quickly. If he can block me and make it stand, the ban exists, it's real. I know he has a block button, so I know he can block me, but can he make it stick? If not, or if he properly restrains himself, the ban does not exist, it's unreal (unless someone else blocks me, very unlikely if I'm careful with any editing)." So I announced my revocation of the voluntary extension, the continued argument over the ban was disruptive and it was more important that it stop. I did not then rush to the article to edit it. Rather, I watch those pages, as I should because of my continued and proper involvement with the topic, and I saw a question I could respond to, and so I did. I did not create the edit just to poke WMC, but I did deliberately ignore his "ban."

WMC entrapped himself. His habits trapped him. He lost sight of why we are here, which is not to assert our personal power, but to cooperatively serve the project and the community, but he was serving his commitment to what he had declared, to his personal opinion, contradiction not allowed. I warned him about this again and again, and his "friends" supported him in scoffing at this. He fell in with bad company. I've had some experience confronting this faction. WMC is not the worst, at all, it was quite possible to work with him, though the situation was deteriorating. That's why I consider this tragic. I'll comment at the remedy proposal. --Abd (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not that complex. There's a pretty broad sense that it's best for the project to restrict you from the cold fusion page. Thus, from WMC's perspective, the block probably represented a service to the project rather than an assertion of personal power. He shouldn't have done it, because he's involved in an active ArbCom case with you. And perhaps WMC should be desysopped, because the ability to recognize and ignore the sort of rudimentary goading and provocation you employed is sine qua non for a successful admin. MastCell ^Talk 02:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Professing to have concernedly "warned" someone and calling a situation "tragic" while on-wiki, then gloating about how you were "shooting fish in a barrel" from the safety of an external forum, is a particularly cowardly form of hypocrisy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• This maybe should note, that according to the original banning admin, the ban was still in place, and that by withdrawing a ban Abd acknowledged that there was still a ban in place. It was not acknowledged by the original banning admin that he was OK with the ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Abd voluntarily submitted to an extension of that ban", is there any previous record that Abd submitted to the ban, except for him mentioning that at the moment that he said that he was going to edit again? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: We don't allow editors to graciously accept administrative action and then turn around, declare the action void, and ignore it. Abd was intentionally provocative here - the block was expected, deserved, and well delivered.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with WMC, Stephen Schulz and Beetstra here. Abd acknowledged the ban and declared he was going to ignore it. WP:POINT disruption. Verbal chat 21:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The "voluntary" nature of the ban is arguable, to say the least. But I would have to agree with Stephen Bain that an admin should not block a user with whom they are involved in an active Arbitration case. That's involvement by any reasonable definition. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe too much squished in one bit. Abd shouldn't have edited and cannot declare a ban "over". WMC should have let someone else block. Shell ^babelfish 06:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - it isn't clear that the ban had expired. WMC had made it clear to Abd that the ban still stood, and no one had yet spoken up to say otherwise. The AN/I discussion could be seen as declaring a new ban or as accepting the terms that WMC had set. Presumably, part of the reason things are here is to determine if the ban was allowed to be imposed by WMC, and, once that was determined, it could be decided if it held or not. In addition, Abd both acknowledged that WMC's ban still held, and that he was chosing to break it in order to provoke this response ("If WMC blocks me for a nondisruptive edit, it demonstrates, in itself, involvement ... [i]f another administrator blocks me for a nondisruptive edit based on WMC's ban ... it would demonstrate affiliation"). - Bilby (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• A banned editor isn't allowed to unilaterally rewrite or reject the terms of his ban. His edit was deliberately provocative (as it was the first time he was blocked for a violation). WMC shouldn't have been the one who placed the block – given how deep we're into Arbitration – but Abd was goading him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• The first block by WMC was not in response to a deliberate provocation, it was in response to an accidental one, an accident created by the prior obvious consensus of the community for tolerating clearly harmless edits. If a ban was placed unilaterally, the editor can unilaterally accept or reject, and the options of both parties remain flexible. An admin cannot create, through a unilateral "ban," a right to block that would not have existed without the ban. Apparently because of his assumptions of bad faith and belief in an admin's power to unilaterally ban in spite of rejection and claims of WMC involvement in personal dispute, TOTN rejected an opportunity to mediate this matter, an immediate step up the DR ladder that I tried. How much disruption might have been avoided had he accepted and a compromise found that was closer to what ArbComm, I believed and was warning, would surely decide? --Abd (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

complete response of Abd to TenOfAllTrades

I've been doing this stuff for years, so I shouldn't be amazed when those who want the freedom to ignore rules want to make rules fixed and inviolable for others. TOAT's comment here is dense with the kind of thinking I've been pointing to. A banned editor can do whatever he pleases, in fact, he or she can accept, rejected, complain, comply, all of those, and we respond, properly, according to what, in the end, IAR requires (which usually means a decision in full compliance with all policies, including dispute resolution and recusal policy.) The first block by WMC was not in response to a deliberate provocation, it was in response to an accidental one, an accident created by the prior obvious consensus of the community for tolerating clearly harmless edits, and I was the primary editor who had then voiced, as uninvolved, the point that harmless edits complicated ban enforcement, so they were not necessarily harmless, but that self-reversion addressed that problem, because it is easy to verify that a self-reverted edit is a null edit, plus the likelihood of gaming is low enough that the ordinary process of complaint/response can deal with such exceptions (strictly!), balanced against opportunities for productive work from a banned editor and the conversion of wasted time in ban enforcement, watching a banned editor's contributions, into something actually useful itself, establishing cooperation in place of conflict. Yes, spelling corrections and the like. More complex self-reverted edits would involve content decisions not to be made by an administrator, but quite possibly by an ordinary involved editor who might even be hostile to the banned editor. My single-character edit, for which I was blocked, was reverted back in by Verbal, very much an opposing editor. (He really should have looked at the whole article, as would normally pop up for preview when undoing, because I had, in fact, erred myself in trying to fix that reference error, and it's much easier to see it in a reversion than in an ordinary edit, so the only good my edit did was to take a step toward identifying the problem. On the other hand, no harm done, in fact.) I suggest that we should allow self-reverted edits, in general and as an option for blocked and banned editors (yes, even sock puppets of site banned editors, provided that the edits themselves are not disruptive aside from being technical violations) because of multiple salutary effects, and this argument is not for my own benefit, it is for the project, for taking a careful and cautious baby step toward healing the damage to the community by the block and ban mentality that forms "consensus" by banning points of view, in fact. If an editor is disruptive even through self-reverted edits, the editor can be explicitly and completely banned without any fuss, it's simply a statement by a supervising admin, whoever would be able, ad-hoc, to alter ban conditions. If a ban was placed unilaterally, the editor can unilaterally accept or reject, and the options of both parties remain flexible. An admin cannot create, through a unilateral "ban," a right to block that would not have existed without the ban. The ability of an administratively banned editor to voluntarily comply or reject evens out power a bit, not to imbalance it toward the editor as opposed to the administrator, but to allow room for negotiation in order to avoid disruption, i.e., to extend consensus and resolve the dispute. For example, before I was banned from CF and talk CF by WMC, I had already agreed to a voluntary page ban; remember, at that point the concern was edit warring, that's why the article was protected. (I was not under any administrative warning regarding talk page participation at that time, the page ban was abrupt and without warning.) While I had not edit warred June 1, I believed that if both alleged edit warriors agreed to a voluntary page ban, it might be possible to get protection lifted immediately, and the rest of the editors could fix the article. I do not consider my personal participation in the article essential, because I seek consensus, and not only does restriction to talk essentially require consensus, even more so would "participation" under a full ban (including Talk) with self-reversion allowed, without the possibility of personal domination of the Talk page or other alleged evils. Nobody at that point, however, was talking a ban from the Talk page, which is chilling; Talk page misbehavior can be easily dealt with in other ways, and I could suggest them -- and have. Hipocrite immediately accepted the offer. WMC ignored it and banned us both from the article and talk, without explaining why. So I offered to accept the ban under two conditions: it was for thirty days only, and it was only from the article. WMC rejected that. Consider how much disruption would have been avoided if he had accepted? Instead, he declared just what TOAT repeated above: you have no right to change the conditions. He's correct that I have no right to personally control his actions, but I do have a right to control my own. So I did. Other possible compromises existed. TOAT, you were offered an opportunity to mediate. You rejected that in a hostile manner. Consider what would have happened if you had accepted. I had deliberately chosen an editor WMC might listen to. Could it possibly have made things worse than they turned out if you had served in good faith? Was I wrong to warn WMC? Was I wrong to ask you to give good advice to WMC -- which surely could have included advice that, had we ended up here anyway, he should not personally block me? Who was warning WMC, among his friends? The cabal is not organized, it is a mob that harms its own members as well as the project, and precisely because it is not organized, it's impossible to negotiate with it, its members believe that it doesn't exist, though the level of joking about it is high, and the worst thing it does is to form a mutual admiration society that leads editors like ScienceApologist, JzG, and now WMC off the cliff, with considerable other damage done along the way. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The reason I am opposing is that I think it should be written that both were wrong here. My reading of the evidence was that WMC, and Abd was aware, didn't release Abd after the first month because Abd hadn't done anything different with his editing. WMC said he would review again in appr a month and told Abd that if there was a need because of mediation or something to let him know. Abd didn't dispute. Abd knew he was cornering WMC and I hate to say this but from watching this all over the place with Abd, he enjoyed the cornering. I would really appreciate it now that the arbcom members are definitely reading this if they would stop Abd from his uncivil and personal attacks of many good editors by lumping us as cabal. This is highly offensive to many of us, yet no one is making him stop, may I ask why? How is this not uncivil and I am quoting Abd? "The cabal is not organized, it is a mob that harms its own members as well as the project, and precisely because it is not organized, it's impossible to negotiate with it, its members believe that it doesn't exist, though the level of joking about it is high, and the worst thing it does is to form a mutual admiration society that leads editors like ScienceApologist, JzG, and now WMC off the cliff, with considerable other damage done along the way. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)" I for one would appreciate this to be removed. It is not here for any other reason other than for Abd to gloat that he is right and the cabal are all what in his mind? I think I will leave for tonight and see what happens with this, thank you for your immediate attentions to this question. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

8) Abd and Mathsci have engaged in personal attacks upon each other during public discussion of this case in an off-wiki venue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

need diffs or links. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is well-agreed that sanctions may be imposed on-wiki for off-wiki interaction or commentary, including on other websites, that is in the nature of threats, harassment, publication of personal information, and the like. To date, I have not seen any claim that any of the colloquy between these editors on Wikipedia Review falls into these categories. While I might wish that Wikipedia Review had different civility expectations than it sometimes does, we should not judge behavior on Wikipedia Review by the standards of Wikipedia. And particularly not in this instance where neither of the parties mentioned appears to have raised any issue about the off-wiki discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While I would give sanctions for real life harassment, especially if it has the potential to cause real world harm, I don't think that it is possible for us to enforce routine incivility policy violations off site. So in order to place the evidence in a case ruling, I would need to see links (by email) that showed the contact to be harassment or exceptionally inflammatory in way that is disrupting on site dispute resolution, such as a blocking admin making an personal attack and threatening an user. Anything else needs to be disregarded or taken up in the other venue for enforcement. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

That's correct, but what remedies are you going to associate to this? This was done off-wiki, and they voluntarily exchanged mutual sarcastic attacks, what damage was done to wikipedia, the case, or the articles? Support it, but wary of how it can be used. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true. However, the relevance here is obscure, but perhaps Bainer will make it clear. What I did at Wikipedia Review, to name the place, would have been incivility and personal attack here, but context is everything. At WR, the custom is to openly speak not only sober fact, but feelings, and full honesty is encouraged. So I said things there that, perhaps, needed to be said, or perhaps not -- I wonder about it myself -- but which quite clearly could not and should not be said here. So it was remarkable that Raul654 brought it here and quoted it. I will say this: if anyone here wants to understand my "agenda," it's all laid out there, I was disclosing it and my thinking fully and without restraint. Yeah, some walls of text, all right, and a few people -- that's all I aim for with that kind of writing -- who clearly read it and understood it. --Abd (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Too coy. Provide links / diffs and quotes, or omit the finding William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment What an interesting idea of Stephen Bain to bring in the frivolous banter on Wikipedia Review, none of which is serious. Which wikipedia rules apply there? I personally took no offense at all at anything Abd has written about me there: he was mild and courteous compared with other users there. Most of what I wrote about him was complete gibberish and certainly there was nothing personal. Stephen Bain should justify himself far more carefully in these circumstances before creating a new precedent. Mathsci (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment If we now are to take into account personal attacks...in an off-wiki venue there will be very interesting implications for numerous "respected admins and content contributors," including members of arbcom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can, or should, police Wikipedia Review. It's one thing to consider someone's comments there insofar as they speak to motivation or intentions, but quite another to apply a Wikipedia-specific standard of behavior ("no personal attacks") to off-wiki discourse. I'm not saying that the discussion in question reflected well on either of them, but it hardly seems reasonable to scour Wikipedia Review for grounds for an ArbCom finding of fact when there has been so much disagreeable behavior on-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 01:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Either we are policing offsite behavior or we aren't? Why does this change from case to case? There seems quite enough on-wiki to support any findings. Shell ^babelfish 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, Mathsci and Abd made personal attacks against each other on WR. Abd also attacked WMC, myself, Stephen, Boris, and lots of other people on WR. Nor did Abd confine his attacks to WR -- he made plenty on-wiki. This FOF is some kind of bizzaro attempt to put Mathsci's and Abd's conduct on the same level, when they are clearly not the same. Oppose in favor of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Workshop#Abd.27s_personal_attacks Raul654 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's style of discussion

9) Abd's style of discussion has made it difficult for other editors to work with him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes, and the key here is to the degree of intent or self-awareness of it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Very. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support -- if it is made clear that this is the case for some editors, not for others. Some editors do not find me difficult to work with, at all. This mirrors my whole life, and it's common with ADHD. There is no question that there are problems with "my style," and it's a lifelong task for me to adapt to the needs of the people with whom I work without sacrificing overriding goals. I've had people who really could not understand what I was doing, who thought it terribly disruptive, tell me, years later, that I was right, but they could not understand it then. Bainer has drafted a proposed remedy which addresses this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs)

Support this is indeed the entire foundation of this case. Though as Mathsci says, this finding is a little on the weak side and doesn't appear to be backed up by any meaningful remedy William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Better to say nothing at all than to gloss over Abd's profound disruption of talk pages, rendering them useless as venues for discussing article improvement and ignoring the pleas of his fellow editors, with such a weak statement as this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of Bilby's evidence, it would be more accurate to say that on balance Abd's edits to the talk page were disruptive and did not help to improve the article. Mathsci (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While correct, I would suggest stronger wording. Shell ^babelfish 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Impossible not difficult surely. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is an understatement. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Dirk Beetstra. Raul654 (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of a cabal

10) There is no evidence of collusion or other improper collaboration among the various users Abd has alleged to be part of a cabal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Re Coppertwig, whatever meaning Abd might take the word to have, and whatever other definitions there might be, the word is widely understood, on this project at least, to refer to collusion or other improper collaboration, and as such it is necessary to address the fact that there is no evidence of that. --bainer (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yeah. As Boris says, make a remedy dealing with editors who keep insisting in unexisting cabals. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Oppose depending on definitions. The problem with the cabal isn't one of improper collaboration or collusion, except as "collusion" can be used to describe effect instead of intention, which may be purely natural or, more likely, a social effect, that collectively does what would be illegitimate for a single editor to do. Edit warring against a POV, for example, may be accomplished with tag-teaming, each editor hitting only 1RR, or rarely 2RR, and this was the first cabal activity that I noticed when I analyzed page histories for RfC/GoRight.

Denying the existence of the cabal is effectively denying the existence of tag-teaming, or that such tag-teaming is repeated over time with the same editors, across multiple articles, rises to the level of a "cabal." The cabal phenomenon can also be seen in the very predictable patterns of comment in this case, it's right here, and I identified cabal members here based on similar patterns in prior community process. To understand how the cabal functions, I'd suggest reviewing RfC/GoRight and the patterns of comments there, which were analyzed my complete evidence cited in that case. The cabal editors, originally identified by me as those who had revert warred with GoRight, comment in one direction, and almost all the neutral editors, including two editors later elected to ArbComm, in a very different direction. It was striking.

I was at the time of RfC/GoRight, totally neutral, I had not edited the article, nor had I encountered the other editors before. Actually, I helped keep the RfC from being deleted due to the failure of Raul654 to sign it, it had only been signed by WMC, and GoRight originally thought I was some kind of enemy for that. But then I read it.... and did the investigation needed.

Notice, here, that Bainer, drafting proposals presumably based on a developing consensus in the committee, or at least representing a neutral position, meets with much the same derision that I have encountered, only somewhat muted for obvious reasons. I did not invent the term "cabal" for this faction, it's been used in the media to revert to the WMC team. Incidentally, on the issue that first defined the cabal for me, I'm "on their side," as to my personal POV, I'm not a global warming skeptic, I believe it's real, and I'm no fan of media critics who have described the "cabal." But the cabal is real as a social grouping that has effects, I'm convinced, I don't think I'm imagining this.

It's not necessary for ArbComm to address the cabal now, to do so would be far more complex than this case can bear and still be resolved in a reasonable time. However, I oppose a finding that "There is no cabal," which would be a denial of what many have seen. I needed to have a word to use to describe the phenomenon. I found it paralyzing to be unable to write about it. I was very careful to make clear at each point that to claim that an editor is a "member of the cabal" was not to claim collusion or improper activity by that editor. The most that would happen, if I had my druthers, is that certain editors would be for some purposes considered as one, specifically for the 3RR rule, or for !voting to ban editors and the like. And any sanctions would be only if a problem behavior continued after warning. The cabal is operating, I assume, with good faith, but what was once legitimate may no longer be so, as the community becomes more sophisticated about the problems that arise with our structure.

I do not have a magic solution to the problem of cabals, though I do have some ideas. However, unless we can face the problem, name it, and start to examine it, we certainly will not be able to prevent the damage that arises. Cabals disrupt consensus process without any sock puppetry, meat puppetry, and just a natural human tendency to run in tribes or gangs or parties or sects or to adopt very similar ideas and mutually support each other in them, and these ideas and the resulting actions are, for it to be a cabal, distinct in conflict with those of the total community. It's not intrinsically harmful, it's only harmful when it cannot be seen and understood, when it cannot be named. The cooperation behind cabal activity, which is instinctive, for the most part, can be turned to constructive purposes, and my long term suggestions and work probably involve harnessing the cabal tendency and making it truly useful while containing the damage by making it more explicit and visible. --Abd (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC) edited to oppose by Abd (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak support; to obvious to be interesting. If you thought it might give Abd (or CT) pause for thought, then his entry above is enlightening. Needs some associated remedy to have any meaning William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment: Abd has explained, for example here, that the use of the term "cabal" doesn't necessarily imply collusion or wrongdoing, but can have an effect nevertheless. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. The word "cabal" always implies collusion or wrongdoing, and Abd's comments make clear that the term was chosen advisedly; in fact, he has boasted of his courage in employing such an inflammatory term. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary: Abd specifically says in his evidence section, "Allegations of membership in a cabal are not allegations of wrong-doing or bad faith"; and one of the definitions in a dictionary is "a clique, as in artistic, literary, or theatrical circles", which doesn't necessarily imply anything negative. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Abd's commentary off-site, which I think was a good deal more forthright than some of his on-wiki justifications. MastCell ^Talk 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, though I'm forthright here, I'm just not as free. I use the term cabal there very freely, because they know what it means, or at least many do. Yes, there is a perjorative aspect to it, for sure, the disclaimer referred to by Coppertwig refers to individual editors. Collectively the cabal has done a great deal of harm, but the individual editors are not necessarily responsible for that. It's a social phenomenon, equivalent to "mob rule," which brings out the worst in people by socially justifying what is not justifiable, and we see it happening here. At some point the behavior of a cabal-supported editor passes limits and the members start to disassociate themselves with it, and that just started happening with WMC. For the first time, we are seeing these editors back off a bit. "Yes, it shouldn't have been him to block." They were not giving him this advice when it would have counted. Take a look at the evidence in this case regarding TenOfAllTrades, who rejected an opportunity to mediate this dispute. --Abd (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Stephen Bain: No problem. I was clarifying, not opposing. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if there were a Remedy proposed in line with this finding. Unfounded allegations of cabals create a poisonous atmosphere and ratchet up the drama level exponentially. A meaningful remedy here (not a "caution" or "admonishment") would clarify to the community that such allegations cannot be thrown around with impunity. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of poisonous atmospheres, can we also outlaw the term "mutual trolling societies" which has been used in this proceeding without ANY disclaimers such as those provided by Abd? I fail to see how "Cabal" should be considered any more pejorative than "Troll", but the latter is used far more frequently and in a much larger scope than the former is. Perhaps we should have an essay on how "There Are No Trolls". --GoRight (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

TINC. It would be nice to have this coupled with a reminder that such accusations impede the consensus process and as other said "poison the atmosphere". Shell ^babelfish 06:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support but too weak I wrote a whole thing about this which is now deleted because it was too emotional. Abd only poisons the atmosphere with this kind of nonsense, and he knows it. His off site rant made it clear about what he was attempting to accomplish so if the arbitrators haven't read it, they need to. I have been at this site since '07 and I am not a valuable editor like the others listed in the list of cabalist. If you don't know those editors like I didn't, look at the work they have done, then ask yourselves this, are editors like these a value to the project? If the answer is yes, which it will be, then something stronger than an admonishment needs to be done so that Abd stops the claims of cabals since Abd has been claiming cabal activities for years I have found. (difs are on the evidence page when editors were addressing the cabal issues, not hard to miss) Thank you for your time,--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie is correct, I became aware of the cabal (this cabal, there are probably others that I haven't seen, some of the disruption in other highly contentious areas are probably the result of what I'm calling "cabal activity") when I researched the history of the dispute involving GoRight at RfC/GoRight. Before that I had no idea of a cabal as such, except for some vague tendency to "circle of the wagons" among administrators when there is a complaint about one from a non-admin. With GoRight, at a point where I was completely uninvolved and apparently have a POV opposite to that of GoRight, it was blatantly obvious. --Abd (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

extended reply to Crohnie by Abd

But I did not use the cabal word until after filing this case, I thought and wrote in terms of a "faction" that I was seeing as engaged in activity that was collectively harmful. No claim is made that the cabal editors are bad editors or that their contributions to the project are not weighty. Rather, they have become involved in activity that frustrates the implementation of, for example, RfAR/Fringe science. We can also see here the general and worrisome rejection of recusal policy by cabal adminstrators and editors, who were defined, largely, based on expressed positions in prior related RfArs and other community discussions. "Cabal" is merely a single word that conveys the essence: collective activity, exercising power, that has a negative impact. Individually, cabal editors are much nicer than when they mass. Enric Naval is relatively easy to work with, on his own and when he's not under the immediate influence and support of other cabal editors like Mathsci and Hipocrite. Consensus was developing slowly at Cold fusion until Hipocrite arrived with serious disruption. WMC, indeed, is a generally good editor in certain ways, and often his shoot-from-the-hip, intuitive blocks are spot on, at least as short blocks, and when he isn't uncivil. The problem is the exceptions and, as well, we may be "correct" to block an editor, but it is quite possible that a different approach would do less damage. Crohnie wants to "stop" the claims of "cabal." It was necessary to point out the cabal here to explain the massive and overwhelming support for WMC's illegitimate claim of his right to unconditionally and unilaterally declare and maiintain a block, and for the position that my entire record of contributions has been one disruption after another, with no balancing benefits. I have not canvassed for support here, and I have a record of resolved disputes. But not with the cabal. Because of mutual reinforcement, it strongly resists compromise and the work necessary to expand consensus and this is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics. When the cabal shows up, it can present an appearance of rapid snow, which then brings along other, more neutral editors, for many or most editors who comment in disputes don't research them, they rely upon the weight of the evidence presented, judged just by reading it without critical examination and looking more deeply and independently, and, in complex disputes, it could take many hours of investigation to truly have an informed opinion. I've seen votes in a ban where editors voted, "Assuming that the charges by So-and-so are true, I support the ban." And then this is counted as ... support for the ban, even where actual investigation later showed that the charges were not true, or, more accurately, single incidents had been inflated into patterns. There was no cabal involved there. When a cabal is involved, the matter gets much more difficult to deal with, it was bad enough without a cabal, but the disruption to resolve it was minor compared to what's involved in dealing with a situation where the cabal has become involved. I cannot consider Crohnie a pure victim, because when you support the banning of editors who are working to improve the project, you might well deserve some opprobrium, but we can see here how Crohnie has been confirmed by the cabal in her rejection of policy and ArbComm decisions -- in which she participated. She will doubtless consider this whole RfAr as tragic, a good administrator being sanctioned for doing right. That is another aspect of the damage that a cabal does. And without the ability to name it, it will be difficult to tame it. --Abd (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I am not sure if there has been or will be any chilling effect from this particular allegation, but it is a distinct possibility if this sort of behaviour becomes part of the normal discourse. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

William M. Connolley desysopped

1) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. William M. Connolley may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means or by appeal to the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Essentially for the block during the case. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of status before the case, blocking the other party during a full-blown arb case is pretty clearly and obviously involved, and a contravention of our policies. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears excessive, although Casliber's point is well taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• WMC was involved and should not have blocked Abd. WMC enforcement of the ban was not going to help resolve the situation so making the block was poor use of the tool.
• Given WMC's other questionable conduct during this case, I think a sanction IS in order. I'll review his full history with the tools and then decide whether to support either a desysop OR an alternative of a topic ban for use of his tools related to Abd and this topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

The ban was established before the case started, and Abd started the case to contest the ongoing ban. It was still standing. Abd already defied the first ban in purpose to force WMC's hand and it seems that he tried the same strategy again, in the middle of an arbcomm case. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is punitive, not preventive. And it certainly will have a chilling effect in admins when dealing with POINTy editors. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Recuse. There are other problem blocks asserted in evidence now, but I've been saying that the issue had become crystal clear, because of WMC's continued insistence that he was able to block. Perhaps WMC's involvement wasn't adequate earlier to require him to recuse, it could be argued with a straight face, but once this case was accepted? This is the highest level of conflict possible on the project: adverse parties in an RfAr I filed with him as the respondent, claiming action while involved. What WMC did by blocking me this time was to demonstrate that he was utterly unable to let go, to recuse, and that's fatal for an administrator. On the other hand, if WMC could assure the Committee that he *understands* recusal policy, and agrees with it (I know he doesn't agree with it, but suspect that this is because he doesn't understand it), and thus will voluntarily comply with it, the committee should consider not desysopping. For me, a "victory" here is that recusal policy is confirmed and clarified, not that anyone is punished. This is complicated, though, by the other remedy proposing a ban. If that's justified, we also have the problem of expecting exemplary behavior from administrators.... I'm too close to personally judge. --Abd (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC has previously used tools while involved. Other evidence of this has been presented in this case; however, I just added [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence#Incident_demonstrating_cabal_existence_and_activity|]], a history and analysis of an incident in October, 2008, showing prior involvement of WMC and myself, conflict on his Talk page, and that he unprotected an article after it had properly been protected per RfPP due to edit warring by various editors, including cabal editors and administrators. He is highly involved with Global warming. The incident shows article ownership by the cabal, intention to continue ownership per WMC comment on his Talk, and cooperative use of tools to further cabal agenda: Raul654, also involved in the article, blocked Logicus during this incident. --Abd (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (oddly enough). Abd asked to be blocked, so I did William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC) This discussion [86] is potentially enlightening. Re-reading that, I notice that there is no finding as to exactly which policy I've violated William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's on your desk, WMC, right under your copy of the paper where you described exactly what policy I had violated at Cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

advice from Abd for WMC

I asked to be blocked? No, I asked for you to recuse, like many times. You took that as defiance, apparently, as "asking for it." That's a primitive game of one-upmanship, of "Who's in charge here?" That's not my game at all. I'm not in charge, and neither are you, I think you ran straight into that. I do have a suggestion now. I actually made it to you before, as I recall, in another situation. You screwed up. Figure out exactly how, and lay it out, admit it, show that you understand it and won't do it again. Just agreeing to a specific forbearance ("I won't block Abd") won't cut it. If you don't understand recusal policy, and it seems you and quite a few you know don't understand it, ask. It actually makes a great deal of sense, and would avoid a whole pile of disruption, and it doesn't stop you from doing what legitimately needs to be done, you just need to understand how to go about it, and get help, don't do certain things alone, and let go when others don't accept your view and won't block when you would. The whole point is to avoid setting up situations where you are exercising power and are personally attached. I've seen other admins go through this. They have many friends who egg them on, tell them that what they are doing is just great, and then, when they've actually driven off the cliff, they realize their friends aren't with them, their friends are back on the cliff telling each other what a terrible shame it is that such a great editor went too far. If you can show to ArbComm that you do understand, and that you therefore are not likely to violate recusal policy again, ArbComm should back up and retreat to an admonishment that acknowledges your "conversion." Yeah. Hard. Some things are hard. In fact, some of the best things are the hardest. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Oppose Not properly justified by Stephen Bain. Mathsci (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose For block during the case? Harsh. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course. No foundation in reality, and would deprive Wikipedia of one of its most useful administrators. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous. Overreaction and unjustifiable. Verbal chat 20:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with Casliber that the recent block was extremely unwise, and that WMC is involved with Abd in light of the case (although I'm not convinced he was before). That said, being desysoped for one very bad short-term block seems like an over-reaction and a worrying precedent. - Bilby (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

In regard to Abd's new evidence, I've reviewed the edits, and note that the only admin action made by WMC regarding Global warming during that period was to remove page protection. Protecting a page to guard a preferred version, or editing a protected page, or blocking an editor, would all be inappropriate admin actions while involved. Unprotected the page, while clearly a disagreement with the protecting admin, seems like a poor example. Plus viewing the edit history shows a dramatic reduction in edits to the page just prior to and after it was unprotected, suggesting that WMC was correct as well. - Bilby (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose If this is only about the single block during the case then this is an over-reaction at best. Shell ^babelfish 06:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have said, if removing WMC bits for this one block then it's too strong of an reactions. Admonish WMC that this is when he should have come to the arbs and shown how Abd pushes the envelope to make a WP:POINT. I believe that Abd knew WMC would uphold and block him. So, the case here was iffy so Abd took a chance and baited and caught. He is smart. If nothing strong stops Abd, you will be back here in a few months with Abd part 3 (or whatever number it is) with Abd bringing another administer here like Raul. I am convinced by Abd own behavior that his goal no matter what else happened, was to be sure WMC paid big in this case. Abd has stated many times it didn't matter what happened to him as long as the abusers (in his eyes) were stopped the project wouldn't end without Abd participations but that he would have done his job well if he accomplished what he has set out to do. I think this kind of crusade is very dangerous and unhealthy for Wikipedia. Please, think common sense, then talk to WMC about things. Thanks, I guess I'm done since I don't know if what I write is even read. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly read by me. Crohnie, you seem to have some idea that I seek out administrators to haul before ArbComm. This is an exhausting process, and this is my first actually filed RfAr, the other one where I was a major party was on JzG, I didn't file it, and it was much simpler and easier because the cabal did not pile in with such numbers, they had already spent themselves on the RfC and I think they saw the writing on the wall, they knew it was a lost cause. Here, they thought, they could possibly "win," and while this is sometimes exciting, it's mostly quite boring, merely engaging, creating piles of Stuff To Do, more than I can handle, actually. While it's possible that there could be some benefit in having someone perform the "police the police" function, that's not me (and it should be explicitly authorized by ArbComm, and the goal should be to stop abuse, not to punish). WMC sought me out and, without warning, banned me from an article where I had spent six months preparing to start editing in earnest, at the point where I actually started editing in significant ways, and was actually finding consensus, in spite of very difficult conditions, and WMC was completely intransigent about it. If Raul654 did that, sure, I'd be here in a flash. What he's done might already rise to something arbitratable, but I don't make decisions like that alone, at least not at that level, and I probably would not take Raul654 before ArbComm without some clear signal from ArbComm that it was ready for it, plus I might not have the time. I take Raul's bluster as just that, I doubt he'd be so foolish as to block me without very clear cause. He is not WMC, he backs down, at least he has so far. Note that I don't make recusal failure the basis of a claim when the administrator's action was proper and the failure to recuse irrelevant. -- Abd 20:03, 10 August 2009 (Signed for Abd by GoRight ... please remember to sign your comments.)

• So far in evidence, we have one poorly-judged block by WMC, placed against an editor who was obviously fishing for a reaction, and who has been allowed a free hand by ArbCom for nearly a month now to troll extensively across these pages. A grotesque overreaction. (To be blunt, if the ArbCom hadn't been sitting on its thumbs for much of the last month, we wouldn't even be looking at that.) I also find it a remarkably unfortunate coincidence that after weeks of deafening silence Stephen Bain has suddenly jumped in with proposed decisions a scant ten hours after WMC blocked Abd. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support Tenofalltrades ignores my detailed history of WMC abusive administrative authority. Faith in wikipedia's leadership and rules will be damaged if WMC gets a "get-out-of-jail free card"[87] once again. Ikip (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your "detailed history" is bunk. And you (and ArbCom) might take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee to see what kind of actions damage faith in Wikipedia's leadership and rules. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

At least eight admins have chastised Connolley's abusive block tactics. Too my knowledge, this is more than any other administrator on wikipedia.

1. User:SatyrTN feb 2009,[88] "Oh - that's bad form, William M Connolley. Really bad form.",
2. Dmcdevit, 15 May 2008, "In my opinion, an administrator should never block someone with whom they are edit warring, and this block was just that, and the edit war was on the very page of the arbitration you two are engaged in together for issues just like this."
3. User:BernardL 15 May 2008, "While this is not the first time William M.Connolley has controversially blocked an editor he has been involved in an edit war with, it is probably the most questionable instance",
4. User:Bigtimepeace 15 May 2008 "I also agree that the block was completely inappropriate. Connolley made a similar inappropriate block of a user with whom he was edit warring not too long ago (dealing with this same article) and saw nothing wrong with that so I'm skeptical as to whether he will see anything wrong here.",
5. User: Viridae, 17 April 2008 "Unblock because WMC was heavily involved in that dispute",
6. User:Aqwis, 14 April 2008 "Due to the blocking admin's violation of our Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes policy, I have unblocked you"
7. User:Chaser,[89] "you can't block users you're in disputes with",
8. User:FeloniousMonk, [90] "Ah, I also see that you've be participating on the talk page prior to the block, you're an involved party, meaning this block being made by you was completely improper per WP:BLOCK. You should have brought this to WP:AN/I where if other, uninvolved admins agreed with your assessment, they would have made the block. But as it is, you should unblock him and apologize before your improper block ends up at AN/I itself."

Would you like me to contact these admins? to have them comment here? I will with your permission.

Calling something "bunk" does not make it magically so. What is "bunk" is that you are defending such egregious and harmful behavior. Ikip (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I take no position on the suitability or applicability of this proposal. I will say that I think it is important that all administrators be treated equally in this regards. If other administrators have been desysopped for reasons of equal or lessor import to what is cited here, so it should be for WMC. I trust the Arbiters to render a decision consistent with this principle based upon prior rulings of a similar nature. --GoRight (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose WMC unquestionably would have been wiser not to rise to the bait, though, and FloNight's alternative proposal above would seem to be in order. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

update, more admins who have opposed Connolley's block abuses have come to my attention Ikip (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support He does seem to be severely abusing his power. Best to remove it from him. Dream Focus 05:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have time to dig up diffs at the moment, and apparently neither do others in this case, but from what I've observed over several years, WMC is often acerbic, truculent, and irascible when dealing with other editors, especially when they hold a different opinion than him in Global warming or other science-related articles. He does appear to be an involved admin in this case and exercised some poor judgement. If he commits to correcting his behavior, then perhaps a desysop won't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Punitive rather than preventative measure. You don't crucify someone who may not always do the very best black and white admin action, especially when they are one of the few noble fellows out there that will stand their ground against the lunatic fringe elements of science and those POV pushing editors that support such wide eyed nonsense. Connolley tries to draw a line in the sand and does his best to ensure our articles aren't based on misinformation and we reward him by taking his bit away if he isn't PERFECT!? Ridiculous.--MONGO 03:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• The decision to block Abd during the case was an exceedingly poor judgment call, and is not necessarily an isolated incident. That said, I am opposed to desysopping an otherwise benefit to Wikipedia. Seems too harsh at this time. I'd definitely support an admonishment for his actions though, especially blocking somebody during an ArbCom case. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose WMC is a credit to Wikipedia and is committed to the quality of science articles. The 2005 review published in the journal Nature found four serious errors in Wikipedia.[91] Much of WMC's work has been directed toward correcting errors of that sort. That should be the central focus of editors who work on science articles and is to be commended, not censured, and he is unlikely to take the bait, if it is offered to him in the future. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley banned

2) For removing parts of another editor's comments on the workshop of this case, edit warring to remove them twice more, and edit warring on the request for arbitration that preceded this case, William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is banned for one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Re Mathsci, there is guidance all over the place on arbitration pages instructing editors to edit only within their own section, and advising them to contact an arbitrator or a clerk if they have any problems. Similarly with the edit warring over the list of parties, a clerk should have been notified and they would have handled it. --bainer (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Highly disproportionate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

After the warning by Rlevse to WMC about the block, I think that it is highly unlikely that WMC will repeat the similar conduct in this case. While WMC might not agree with the warning and might say so, I don't think that he will engage in similar conduct during other similar situations, so a ban is not needed to stop the conduct and will serve no useful purpose. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Disproportionate. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. WMC has indef blocked editors for far less than what he did, giving them no second chance. Scibaby. The long-term damage from this is difficult to assess; some of these blocks may indeed have been justified. However, the belief that we can protect the project by blocking and banning as tools of convenience should die an early death, the sooner we move beyond this, the better. Done without necessity, it creates the very hazards it purports to prevent. --Abd (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Clerking in this case has been ineffective. Abd has ignored direct instructions form the clerk to remove material. And I didn't ban Scibaby William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Clerks have no coercive power, they may edit, warn, block. They cannot command anyone to do anything. If a comment is inappropriate, they may remove it more quickly than they can request it to be removed. I think I did eventually comply with the request; if not, the clerk didn't tell me so. Clerks may warn that an action, if repeated, will result in a block, and they may actually block, at their discretion. There is no offense on Wikipedia, "failure to act as required," with little exception, of no application here.

WMC is correct, he did not "ban" Scibaby, and I didn't say that he did. He indef blocked Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). He had been, at that time, involved in editing Global warming and Scibaby was edit warring there. First block. Indef. Charges of sock puppetry, but the alleged puppet master was apparently not warned of the SPI nor notified of the block. Certainly high grounds for suspicion, but normally the editor(s) would have been short-blocked for edit warring, and requested to use one account only, and the request enforced. (The alleged master was Obedium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ultimately indeffed by Raul654.) --Abd (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I did eventually comply with the request - you are, as usual, wrong. You refused to comply and Hersfold had to wipe up your mess for you William M. Connolley (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"...is banned for one month." - I'd prefer "...is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one month". That grammar change should be done. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 19:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Should William M. Connolley violate this ban by engaging in sockpuppetry, then what? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Another overreaction. This matter had been settled by the clerk, no further action is needed. Verbal chat 20:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. What do we have WP:BOLD and WP:IAR for, if not for addressing obvious nonsense like Abd's "Everyone whose name shares a letter with William M. Connolley has to be a party to this case, as well as everybody whose birth date is evenly divisible by 2, 3 or 5"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This was definitely poor form on WMC's part. Whether the punishment fits the crime is a question I'll leave to others. MastCell ^Talk 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not, it was not poor form. It was an expression of consistency and boldness, if politically inopportune. I do hope that we value boldness and consistency above opportunism in an admin. This case may well show if I'm justified in my hope. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these were shining moments for WMC but this is disproportionate, especially since no meaningful remedy is being proposed to limit Abd's disruption of content-oriented parts of the project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Addendum to Bainer: The case was not effectively clerked; several parties complained about the wrangling on the page and asked for a clerk to keep order, to no avail. For the past week this disputatious case has had no clerk at all, again despite an emailed plea for a clerk to be assigned.(see here). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not proven involved, upholding a community endorsed ban which was a deliberate softer option than the alternatives. This is also way too harsh. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Seems disproportionate. The situation created by Abd's edit was problematic and complicated (Abd has written that his intention was to "test" what WMC would do during the ArbCom case [92]); in the circumstances there should have been a request for ArbCom to deal with it. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Stephen Bain concerning lists: I did contact NYB and Casliber by email when this happened. Although I have given evidence in 4 ArbCom cases before (Dbachmann, PGH, Fringe Science and Abd&JzG), this was the first time that the filing party has abruptly added me to the list, supposedly at my insistence, after the case had been accepted by ArbCom; thanks for indicating the more correct procedure to handle this through the clerks. Mathsci (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Opppose You guys are taking yourselves way too seriously if you think this is appropriate. Shell ^babelfish 06:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Not too put too fine a point on it, but if this remedy passes then it would demonstrate that ArbCom and its clerks are incapable of managing their own process. If there's disruptive conduct during the presentation of a case for Arbitration, then issue warnings and apply blocks, at the time, and not after the fact. Issuing a handful of warnings for the worst behaviour (edit warring), followed by ignoring all manner of personal attacks and accusations, and then finishing off with a one-month ban issued to one party after the fact isn't preventing disruption or improving the project — it's punishment, pure and simple. It's a kick in the teeth. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I take no position on the suitability or applicability of this proposal. I will say that I think it is important that administrators be held to the same standards of conduct as those for ordinary editors. If an ordinary editor would be so sanctioned, so it should be for WMC. I trust the Arbiters to render a decision consistent with this principle based upon prior rulings of a similar nature. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: This remedy would be purely punitive. Per TenOfAllTrades. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• NYB has it right. This is a horrible idea. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• William M. Connolley, Abd is right, Connolley has blocked editors for much less. In the middle of an edit war Connolley was deeply involved with, Connolley blocked an editor "as a disruptive editor"[93] and then unprotected the page which was protected.[94] A RfC resulted, which was dropped on a technicality, and a request for arbitration.[95] This is just one of dozens of examples. Ikip (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Don't include this one. Punitive bans are not productive. Cool Hand Luke 16:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• A topic ban from certain science-related articles might be order. Don't forget that WMC used to actually have a page in his userspace in which he dared global warming skeptics to place wagers on their beliefs that global warming was wrong, making it clear that he thought everyone who did so was a sucker. Whether he is right or wrong or not in the belief is immaterial, the fact is, he proved that he is here to push a certain agenda. Cla68 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Cla68 can you clarify why a topic ban from certain science-related articles might be order?? WMC wasn't in a content dispute with Abd on cold fusion. In what way were is actions related to the topic of the article? What agenda is it that he pushed on cold fusion when he reverted to a version GoRight suggested? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Ludicrously disproportionate remedy. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd placed under mentorship

3) Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Abd shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case, the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on talk page discussion style, but otherwise Abd and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the term is reached, Abd or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Based on a provision in ADHD. --bainer (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We would necessarily be informed of the mentor and the terms of the mentorship, and if either were not satisfactory to us, we would revisit the remedy at that time. --bainer (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

A poor joke, divorced from reality. Even if done properly it would be hopeless; as Stephan points out, the terms of the motion are so weak that A could choose, e.g. GR or CT as mentor William M. Connolley (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Oh, and Once an agreement on the term is reached, Abd or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email appears to imply that even the terms of the mentorship would not be public: can you confirm that is your intent? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Won't work. Abd has accepted no failure from his part, so he will make no effort to correct his behaviour. Also, all the problems pointed out by Dirk. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Thanks. Truly. It will work better than anyone imagines. It is not necessary that the mentor be an administrator, but if the mentor is not an administrator, there could be a cooperating administrator who would routinely handle any necessities, though, in fact, I can guarantee that there won't be a problem, I would come to the Committee if there was any difficulty, and a mentor recognized by ArbComm should receive a friendly reception at Arbitration Enforcement should I violate some agreement. The mentor should definitely be my choice, or at least appointed with my uncoerced consent (within reason, and giving me a month is very reasonable) because rapport is essential for the success of something like this, though I'm very open to suggestions from ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

And should Abd violate the terms of the mentorship, what will be the enforcement? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 19:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The one who has the standing to declare a violation (probably the mentor) warns or blocks to enforce it, or, if not an admin, requests enforcement at AE, which should be routinely granted until and unless I convince ArbComm to change the mentor, or it is blatantly abusive. It's simple and pretty standard and non-disruptive because the communication with the committee is private. If I misbehaved, I'd be history quickly, I do not have the committee in my pocket. Thank God! I can see no reason for ArbComm to tie its hands by specifying details in advance. I have no objection, however, to the terms of any agreements being public, once in place. --Abd (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Mentor should be agreed, and not of Abd's choice; although he could propose mentors, as could other editors. Broad terms should also be decided by arbs/community input and the mentor at the start. Verbal chat 20:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Refine Strict mentorship could work but the mentor should emphatically not be of Abd's choice, and it is essential that the mentor be an admin with broad discretion for enforcement. The proposal here would only worsen the problem by providing him with a shield between himself and the community. The pool of potential mentors having the exceptional maturity, self-confidence, and community stature needed to deal with Abd is extremely small. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• ...and possibly even an admirer who reinforces his problematic behavior. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Until Abd finds a subject where the mentor is involved, or until Abd is for the first time restricted by the mentor (and hence declares involvement on the mentor). Nope, please. Or as Stephan Schulz and William M. Connolley propose: GoRight or Coppertwig as a mentor. This is not a solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is sooo weird. I'm more of a mentor to GoRight, though GoRight does offer me advice, in public and in private, as have many other much more experienced editors, and I appreciate it. Coppertwig is a bureaucrat (or was?) on another WMF project, highly experienced, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting Coppertwig, do people think I'm an idiot? This not only has to work, it has to look like it's working, and Coppertwig has been too much of a supporter to serve for the public image aspect.
• I must say that I'm truly puzzled by Beetstra's obvious bitterness and ABF. He's not cabal, definitely not. WTF have I done to him? We've been able to work together well, I'm certainly satisfied with what he's done as a blacklist administrator, grateful, even. He is, himself, verbose, but I haven't been verbose with him for a long time, Beetstra, why don't you email me and tell me why this hammering away with assumptions, repeated so many times, that I'm going to wikilawyer this and demand that? If I declare my mentor "involved" -- it could happen, I suppose -- I'd go directly to ArbComm or as directed by ArbComm, and it would be quickly resolved. I can't demand that ArbComm recuse or that any officer (supervising admin or mentor-admin) recuse, I can ask for it in an appeal to ArbComm, and surely, if I did this tendentiously, I'd quickly be history. --Abd (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• YES, Abd, this is indeed bitterness. I am not going to do this via mail, it belongs strictly to this case.

When I was told about this case on my talkpage, you posted as well, calling it drama or wikidrama (I am not sure which), and I was not surprised. In very short, what the **** is this case about, my answer: NOTHING. And see where it brings us. Suggested desysopping and banning of a, dispite some negative points, trusted admin. Yes, I think that every admin has negative points (I know mine, I know that in the beginning I should have recused somewhere but I did not!). And if you dig .. Mistakes are made, but not because the ArbComm said in the previous case that you have to escalate quick, that means that if there is something that you have to escalate. Here, if you dig, every admin should recuse from any other admin, you can just write down the relational tree.

I say 'NOTHING', OK, why nothing:

1. You and Hipocrite were two main editors on Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion, and however you turn it, the two of you were not agreeing, and methods applied there were not perfect (you can say, but it worked, well, I do get the feeling that also that is disputed, but you both were there, and doing most of the work on those pages). I am not saying that you were wrong there, I am not saying that Hipocrite was wrong, I am not even saying that one was more wrong/right than the other. There was something going on. And it does not take 3 edits to edit-war, 3RR is merely a line, it can already be one revert that is just not good. Your intentions were good, but I do not believe that Hipocrites intentions were not good. And to state it here, I firmly believe that also WMC's intentions were good. So we have to start of with, simply, three people with good intentions (shocking, and now we have an ArbComm!!!).

But now the situation goes on:

1. Now WMC steps in, protects the page and reverts to an old version. That is not the end, it can always be reverted back to any other version. The discussion then heats up, it does not say 'to which version do we revert', but gets more the feeling of 'WMC did not revert to a version which had consensus'. That sounds more like an accusation. And involvement in the dispute is claimed.
2. WMC sees that page protection is damaging, and it is, any page protection is damaging. What is the other admin solution: give the editors who are bickering (whoever or however right or wrong) a cooling down block. But also that give damage, they are productive elsewhere, they are also involved in another important discussion. Another solution is to tell these two editors to not edit the pages for some time, ask them to cool down (and you two were disagreeing, doing it to one would mean that the other could advance their position, it should go for both, even if one of them is completely right, it is just fair). Hipocrite follows that, but you, you do not acknowledge this, and start a dispute resolution process. WHY? I do not see the reason. Yes, it is not strictly written down in policy or guideline, but very similar type of bans are,
3. But you don't acknowledge WMC's ban. You argue, ignore, find ways around, call people involved, do null-edits. You escalate the drama. It was all not necessery. There is nothing wrong with stepping away, whether the admin who says you to do something is involved, or even whether the admin is not, according to procedure or policy or guideline, 'allowed' to do that. Hell, policy does not say that you can also decide to step away yourself, so if an editor decides to step away, we go to ArbComm? Abd, it 'controlled' a situation in a non-disruptive way, and it should be encouraged (yes, I am repeating this a handful of times!), not dragged for ArbComm.
4. Again, recusal is brought into the discussion. Yes, if there is a negative outcome to a situation, then recusal is necessary. But here, in the beginning, the situation was not like that, he may have been involved, maybe he really was involved, maybe he was not involved at all. It does not matter, the action is not furthering a position, it is just cooling it down. Sigh. It was not worth the fuss about it.

As I point out, and what has already been a Principle here on ArbComms very often: Policies and guidelines are descriptive. That does not mean, that if it is not there, that whenever that happens to you you have to escalate it, ignore it, or fight it, it could also mean to you, that you realise, 'hmm, yes, I am a party in something that is maybe not completely productive' (and you don't even have to agree with that), maybe I should first discuss somewhere else. And maybe, you could have gone to an appropriate policy page, and tried to include the point, see where the limits of it are. That would have given good-will, and I am sure that the ban (even if it did not exist, or if you did not acknowledge it, whatever!) would have been lifted early. Even if you do not agree and believe that the whole world is against you, or that the editor who is imposing this is 'involved' in some way, this (banning someone from a specific page) was (and is, whatever the ArbComm here decides) a good solution, less damaging than the two harder options: blocks and page protection, and it should have been encouraged, not escalated.

Sorry, Abd, if I see this all, there are points which are true. And I know, and I agree with you there (and with GoRight and Coppertwig), but it is not worth it. It does not need 207 pages (now probably more) of evidence, it does not need blocks and admins overturning each others blocks of editors, useless, utterly useless wikidrama. As it was described off wiki (in a private discussion with what maybe one day will be called a Cabal where I am a member), this is a total and utter waste of time. In Dutch 'jij maakt van een mug een olifant' (translation: 'you are turning a fly into an elephant').

And look at it, there is so much info (evidence and workshop), that the ArbComm does (?) not read it, there are drafted solutions there which, to me and to quite some others, do not make any sense, which condemn what should be encouraged, or are of a hardness that just opposes everything (and yes, the ArbComm is also right, there are things that absolutely should never have happened, but they are now ripped out of the context of why we are here: an escalation of NOTHING). And I read intense bitterness also in others who discuss here, and my bitterness (and that is not due to you) is made stronger by these (drafted and other) proposals, which are tottaly out of this world.

I know, there is more behind it, there is more around it, the situations are older. But I believe this is the locus of this ArbComm, and that just does not make any sense.

So, I know now, you don't understand why I am so bitter (though I hope that this post reflects a bit). I will have some consolation in the fact that I know why this situation bitters me, and more consolation in that others have the same. I hope that ArbComm excuses me, if I express negative feelings against them. I understand, and I am afraid that it is also a limit of this form of dispute resolution. And to add to the bitterness, there is no way back anymore, we have to sit this out, and live with the decisions of the ArbComm.  :-( --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra is not the only one who feels this way - when I learned of Abd's intention to file a case, I assumed there was a lot more to it than has been presented. Instead, this has been a mixed bag with no focus - we've muddled a case ostensibly about WMC imposing a topic ban with discussing Scibaby socks, cabalism, etc. none of which has made it into Abd's proposals here or has any link that I can really make out, beyond the most tenuous and tangential. As ever, the faults (such as they are) here are six-of-one and half-a-dozen of the other. Policy here may not be clear, but by presuming that policies and guidelines are some kind of rulebook, we have all bypassed the possibility of clarifying our community practice in a positive and non-confrontational way. Since Arbcomm doesn't make policy, doesn't set precedent like a court, etc. they are essentially (with apologies) an unimportant diversion if Abd's stated goal of improving our editing environment is to be met. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, Fritzpoll, do you support wikipedia guidelines and rules? Maybe you two are okay with administrators repeatedly breaking the rules, and abusing their authority, but I think many of us, including many arbcoms here today, HAVE HAD ENOUGH.

I just want to say Beetstra, that your "rambling unreadable wall of text" comments are, in the words of Connolley,[96][97] [98][99] These are some of the many personal attacks Abd has had to endure in this arbcom from veteran editors who should know better. Ikip (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, Abd knows that I have given him many chances, and that I have assumed a lot of good faith on him. He also knows that I disagree with him on many things, but we have always worked it out. However, that does not mean that Abd is always right, and this here, in my opinion, is a case where Abd is wrong. That is not to say, that WMC was not wrong either, but the reason that this case was started is completely wrong. You on the other hand, may have a case, but that is not to decide in this. And that one is wrong, is certianly not a reason to let others of the hook. And I believe that I have tried to smack them both in equal ways, as on both sides things were wrong. Yes, I support Wikipedia guidelines and rules, and unfortunately, some of us have to work hard to make sure others follow the rules. And I think that you are the first to tell me that my "rambling unreadable wall of text" comments are .. what are they? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I am not ok with repeated violations of the rules, but we're not here because of repeated abuse. We're here because a page ban was imposed by WMC on Abd in preference to blocking, and Abd disagreed with it, violated it, and was blocked for it. The more sensible thing would have been to request outside opinion on the ban and its correctness, solved this all quietly, and be done with it. The best course is that of least disruption. Since your evidence pertains to blocking, and this case relates to WMC trying, unsuccessfully in the event, to avoid blocking, you may wish to pursue WP:DR separately from this case. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Fritzpoll: I think we are here because of repeated violations of the rules. Abd, in starting this case, referred to repeated use of tools while involved by WMC of which the recent situation was only one example. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to Enric Naval: Abd has indeed modified his behaviour in reponse to feedback, as I describe here in the section "#Abd ignores warnings" on this page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I would strongly suggest that Arbcom ensure a proper mentor is chosen. As GoRight and Coppertwig have yet to admit any wrongdoing on the part of Abd, they seem ill-suited for such a task. An experienced mentor would be best. Shell ^babelfish 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Completely inadequate remedy, if Abd was open to advice then we wouldnt be here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if Connolley had learned his lesson from the last arbcom, when 10 arbcoms unamiomously decided that Connolley had "inappropriately extended a block that he had made" we wouldn't be here.[100] Finally, finally, the block of Abd during this arbcom was the last straw. Ikip (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Refine As others have used this term so will I. I think the way this is sounding it's going in a perfect circle. Now we can have Coppertwig and GoRight mentor Abd, or will that be saying yes sir to everything. If serious about a mentor then the committee should pick an experienced editor to mentor Abd. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• This would look an awful lot like an abdication of ArbCom's responsibilities here. "We can't figure out what to do with Abd, so we're going to futz around a bit with finding a mentor who might come up with something for us. If it doesn't work, we can let him screw around for a couple of months before the mess comes back." We need to desysop and ban WMC, but we'll give Abd a month to choose his own mentor and a free hand after that? Really? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, okay, let's make this even. Desysop me, too, okay? Apparently, TOTN, Arbcomm took WMC's behavior more seriously than I took it, I'd not even have thought of proposing he be banned. Admonished, perhaps, though, since he clearly did more edit warring than I did, perhaps if I'm to be admonished, he should indeed be sanctioned. Come to think of it, the difference does make sense. If I deserve one admonishment for one accidental revert (and AGF does require assuming that I'm not lying through my teeth about it not being intentional, that is, I did not even dream that anyone would dare to remove their name as Mathsci did, so I concluded, without really thinking about it, that the missing name was a puzzling oversight, I must have hit "Cut" instead of "Copy" or something.), what is an appropriate response to the repeated and clearly intentional edit warring by WMC in this case, in spite of warnings, and against multiple administrators? If there is another way to address this, to prevent recurrence, anyone who knows my positions would know I'd favor trying it. It's not about "deserve," really, nor is it about equality or fairness of response as TOTN seems to think, it is about protecting the project from damage, and we have to balance any expected damage from an admin or editor's errors or faults, and the positive contributions we lose if we ban. -- Abd 19:40, 10 August 2009 (Signed for Abd by GoRight)

I assume that TOTN = TOAT. Abd, this is probably a good place to observe that discretion is the better part of valor. As you have advised me at times you should seek to recognize when less is more. You've already made most of these points several times. Stop flogging the dead (redundant) horse and simply let this play out. --GoRight (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, struck as unnecessary. Thanks, GoRight. Yes, I've done that many times, I have no idea why I write TOTN for TOAT, Brain fault. Age. No sleep. Too much coffee. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I won't take a position here either way on the suitability of this proposal. I will say that it is essential that ArbCom retain their final approval on who the mentor is and on the conditions that this imposes on Abd so as to ensure that appropriate levels of impartiality are maintained. I would urge the Arbiters to resist any suggestions that give Abd's detractors any leverage to meddle in the final arrangements as this only invites further drama and possible harassment of Abd. It is also important that Abd have significant input into the selection of a mentor because to be successful Abd and the mentor must have the ability to work constructively together on a personal level. Beyond these points I trust the Arbiter's judgment on the details. --GoRight (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they know what they are doing, better than any other gathering or process here. I've argued quite similarly with regard to other mentorships, that it's crucial that there be rapport between editor and mentor, or else the mentor is little more than a jailer. It's a complex issue, in fact, covered by ArbComm making a separate decision about it, at relative leisure. ArbComm could name a "supervisor," an admin who acts on their behalf, with an assumption of their approval, subject to appeal to them. Kind of like discretionary sanctions, but with a named admin (or a small set could be a committee, thus more available, covering all cases requiring such supervisory work.) This admin would not be the mentor, and would keep a distance, supervise the mentorship, act as needed, and report to ArbComm if there is a problem that the admin can't handle directly without disruption. Efficient, it would probably be a small job, and if it wasn't a small job, it would be a possible sign that the mentorship wasn't working. Or, on the other hand, that the mentored editor was being harassed. The mentor would make a judgment and inform the supervising admin of that judgment, and the supervising admin could then take a look, solicit comment as needed, and intervene as the admin thinks best, or report to ArbComm if the problem isn't resolvable without ARbComm attention. Frivolous appeal would be sanctionable.... I tell you, if I were being hanged and the hangman were having trouble tying the knot, I'd say, "Here, let me help you with that. See...." But I'm not being hanged, I'm being helped, and that is exactly the kind of solution to problems I've been working for so long. Sounds like bureaucracy, eh? No, simply a recognition that if there are clearly defined responsibilities that don't conflict with each other, everything is likely to proceed much more efficiently and non-disruptively. No big discussion needed, and ready process and access to resolve small disputes. --Abd (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I recommend a brief break of some sort. Have some tea. You've had your say, now set back and let others have theirs with no further need to reply. Beyond that trust the Arbiters to do their best to be fair to everyone involved. --GoRight (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Any mentorship should be by an experienced administrator, as in the case of User:PHG (User:Angusmclellan); however, I am not convinced this solution will work. Independently of issues of ADHD, Abd only edits at present seem to be fringe POV-pushing around cold fusion. If ArbCom doesn't address this problem, presumably the community will. Mathsci (talk) 04:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as insufficient bainer's second comment above addresses the obvious issues, but this remedy seems incommensurate with the level of disruption Abd has caused. Maybe one more editor repeating TPG, RS, and UNDUE ad nauseam would help, but #Abd ignores warnings. If implemented, this should be coupled with a ban on non-mentor-related activities until one is found. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Grossly insufficient, a slap in the face to anyone who has had to deal with Abd's disruption. So he gets to pick the apologist of his choice to act as mentor, "negotiate" the terms, and continue on acting in his usual disruptive way. I seem to remember this being tried in the real world with poor results. I don't know why we should expect it to work any better here. Raul654 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oh, this just gets better and better. According to bainer, after they "negotiate" the terms of the mentorship, they get to keep those terms secret from the rest of the community. (Mentorship would typically be a private relationship between the mentor and the subject. They could conduct it publicly if they wished, however.). Raul654 (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd admonished

4) Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages. Abd is further admonished for engaging in personal attacks with Mathsci during this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I guess that it has to be said, to stablish that it was wrong (and you should admonish also WMC for the edit war in arbitration pages), but it's not going to have amy real effect because Abd has already ignored many advices, admonishments, etc, so one more is not going to do much more. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC) As the one below, it should say "off-wiki" if it's about the comments on Wikipedia Review. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I was inclined to support, actually, but wait a minute! I did do one apparent revert on the request page. An error, it was not done by an undo, but, as described, by an edit adding the diffs for notifications and then I saw that the name of Mathsci, whom I had just notified, was missing. Damn! I must have somehow not saved it, it never even dawned on me that he would have actually removed it! As to the personal attacks, that finding could be chilling, this was off-wiki, in a forum where I was, I believe, being flamed by Mathsci before I arrived there. The tradition is strong that we don't sanction off-wiki behavior, and my sense is that there was a communication value in that behavior, there. It's conceivable that, long-term, it may have improved relations with Mathsci, I see some possible hints of that. It would be like a court sanctioning a lawyer for talking trash to another lawyer in a bar. While behaving in court. Of course, this is an admonishment, not a sanction. But does this mean that if I criticize, using the local language at Wikipedia Review, another editor, I could be sanctioned as Arbitration Enforcement? No, this does make me queasy, though I can appreciate the intention. However, if there is evidence of incivility -- as distinct from appropriate criticism -- here on Wikipedia, I should be admonished. --Abd (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Too weak to be of any interest William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Oppose: See my comment in the finding of fact. Abd did not realize he was reverting someone's edit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose admonishment for the specific reason of edit warring on the arb pages. This has already been dealt with. Support action for continued incivility. Verbal chat 20:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Admonishment? He completely disregarded Arbcom's advice in the previous case, going so far as to state that Arbcom "roundly ignored the complaints against me." [101] What makes you think he'll pay any more attention this time? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The record makes clear that "admonishments" and "advisements" are of absolutely zero use in this particular case. Don't bother. Abd will interpret this case as complete vindication of his approach, as he did with the immediately preceding ArbCom case. And he will drag another case here sooner rather than later, without having learned anything. Either sanction him or don't, but let's not waste our time. MastCell ^Talk 21:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This didn't do any good in the first case; lets not make the same mistake, eh? Shell ^babelfish 06:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Shell, I was not "admonished" in the first case. I do understand, with an admonishment, that if I disregard it, I could be blocked without warning, particularly if it is egregious. On the other hand, what's odd about these comments, such as yours, is that edit warring isn't my schtick, I'm normally at a 1RR self-limit, and incivility likewise is not my style, here. --Abd (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh for goodness sake Abd, "advised and urged" then. Regardless of what wording, the fact remains that you appear to have ignored that and all other advice given to you. That makes it very unlikely that any kind of "advice" or "urging" or "admonishment" will help in this case. This isn't about thinking that you'll edit war or be incivil, this is about being rather certain that you plan to ignore any "admonishments" directed at you anyways unless its specifically enforceable by block or ban.

Shell ^babelfish 10:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• I very much listened to the advice, and followed it. That you don't agree is a matter of interpretation, and mentorship is designed to deal with all that, without requiring massively disruptive process to make judgments that are very difficult to make on a large scale. In this case -- please remember that the admonishment isn't general but is designed to stop a particular behavior -- I'm "admonished" for edit warring and personal attacks off-wiki. I don't edit war, period. I use single reverts, sometimes, to make a point, and I also use "partial reverts" where what is going on is really rapid negotiation, attempting to satisfy another editor. I.e., if an editor removes a statement I put in with source argued to be weak, I may replaced it with an additional, stronger source. I claim that this isn't edit warring, and that the policy regarding "revert" conflicts with the linked definition of reversion and the description of why it is a Bad Thing. Be that as it may, I have never been blocked for edit warring, except once in 2007, where the blocking admin immediately recognized what I'd been doing -- and I wouldn't, now, have presented even the appearance, with one exception quite notable in this case, the edit war at Cold fusion of May 21, I tnink it stands out as unique, and, I would argue, the "edit war" that day advanced consensus on the article, the result is a kind of justification, and, indeed, I expected that result. I still think there were one or two reverts that day that I should not have used, I could have done it better. Bald reverts, in particular, beyond one, are to be avoided, and even one revert is dangerous, it should be done with a clear expectation of consensus on it, my opinion, but there are always exceptions. Bald reversion is clearly running into edit warring, when it moves beyond a single revert.

Further, the single "revert" during this case, on the request page, wasn't a conscious "reversion," as in an undo, but it was a re-addition of a name that had been removed by that individual, where I didn't realize that this was what I was doing. No about of admonishment can prevent all errors, and that was an error, had I known, I'd have simply left it to the clerks to fix it, if necessary and appropriate. My behavior was not parallel to that of Mathsci, who deliberately removed his name twice, nor with that of WMC, who hit 3RR or 4RR on the workshop page, plus other stuff elsewhere.

As to personal attacks off-wiki, there seems to be a consensus here that off-wiki behavior like that should not be brought here, and I thought that was well-established. If it was actually harmful to the project, though, sufficiently that mention is necessary, I'd support it. As I wrote above, I was uncivil there, in a context where incivility is practically expected. I was uncivil with editors there who are friends, in fact. Among students at CalTech, "incivility" was routine banter, "dorks." Context is everything. If I called an editor a "dork" here, unless it was clearly a friend and accepted banter, it would obviously be uncivil and we have far too much incivility here. --Abd (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you do edit-war. And when you do, you wikilawyer about it with the best of them. Here I reported you for racking up 4 reverts in 4 hours on cold fusion. Oddly enough, my report was handled by WMC, who declined to block you for your blatant 3RR violation (thus preserving the "clean" block log of which you boast above). As I recall, you suggested that you had been set up by the cabal and gave a lengthy self-justification based upon the claim that your reverts were "consensus-seeking" rather than "bald" reverts, and thus exempt from 3RR. Whatever - the 3RR thing is water under the bride, but the underlying problem here is a lack of self-awareness - look at how you present yourself here, compared to the actual record. There is no hope for an admonishment - or even for mentorship - under these circumstances. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Wholly insufficient, and grossly disproportionate with Stephen's other proposed remedies. (WMC edit warred briefly, and so deserves a desysopping and project ban; Abd edit warred briefly, and so deserves an admonishment.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with an "admonishment," even if I didn't do anything wrong. I teach my kids not to argue when someone tells them not to do something that they haven't done (unless actual punishment is one the way). "Okay, I won't do that," is quite sufficient. I won't edit war and I won't be uncivil -- but with the latter I'm a bit unclear exactly what behavior to avoid, and whether I would be capable of compliance, without damage, and I'd be much more comfortable addressing any improper on-wiki behavior, which is completely within ArbComm's remit. Note, however, that it's possible I don't understand an admonishment, hence the importance of someone to advise me, interactively and supportively, which is what I expect from a good mentor. --Abd (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since Abd didn't listen to the arbcom the last time around, and hasn't heeded the 100-odd warnings he's already gotten, and still to this day doesn't think he did anything wrong(!), could bainer please explain why he expects warning #101 to be any different? "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" - Albert Einstein. Raul654 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only insanity is the Connolley has been able to abuse his tools for so long. Connolley never listened to the last arbcom, in which 10 arbcoms unanimously found that he had abused his administrative tools.[102] Connolley was given a second chance, a second chance that only elite editors[103] get on wikipedia.

Then Connolley blocks Abd during this arbcom. I think Connolley was so used to being immune to punishment, Connolley thought he could get away with it once again. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci admonished

5) Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages. Mathsci is further admonished for engaging in personal attacks with Abd during this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

needs evidence, as per preceding point on Mathsci. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I guess it has to be said. On the second sentence, Mathsci points out that it probably refers to comments made in Wikipedia Review? Is it also the same for Abd? Both proposals should say "off-wiki personal attacks". --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Recuse. I haven't presented evidence about Mathsci incivility, but uncivil he was, in my opinion, here, on-wiki. I would not dream, however, of supporting admonishment here for his comments at Wikipedia Review. Mathsci, however, you did edit war on the request page, removing your name as a party repeatedly was definitely edit warring. --Abd (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (a) at least until some evidence is presented (b) for apparently placing MS and A on the same level William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment Where else, apart from with the adding of my name as an involved party by Abd, which I twice removed, have I edit warred? Please provide diffs from amongst my 11,000 other edits, 6,400 of them to name space articles. Stephen Bain will have to justify himself far more carefully before attempting to admonish me for frivolous gibberish written on Wikipedia Review. Did Stephen take advice before writing this and does this also apply to GoRight now? Mathsci (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• re Abd Given my statements above and in the FoF section, together with my apology to User:AGK and in the FoF section, I do not understand Abd's last sentence. Abd please reread what I have written. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per MathSci. Verbal chat 20:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose He made a mistake and he apologized; formal admonishment seems a bit like swatting a fly with an aircraft carrier. Shell ^babelfish 06:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• OTT but no surprise there. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: No remedy is needed re Mathsci's editing of arbitration case pages. When told by a clerk not to edit the list of parties, Mathsci said "It goes without saying that I will do exactly as you requested". Mathsci has also apologized again here. I haven't seen evidence for the other allegation(s) in this remedy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Newyorkbrad

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged

1) The Arbitration Committee urges that the community engage in a policy discussion and clarify, on an appropriate policy page, whether and under what circumstances an administrator may direct that a given editor is banned from editing a particular page or on a particular topic (outside the context of arbitration enforcement), without first attaining a consensus for the ban on a noticeboard, and if so, how such bans are to be reviewed. Such discussion should seek to attain consensus on a policy in this area within one month from the close of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The discussion in this case has demonstrated that there appears to be no clear policy governing the circumstances under which an individual administrator may, for good cause, ban a given editor from a particular page or topic. It has by now become clear that the community has the right to impose such a pageban or topic-ban, typically after a discussion on ANI, but it appears to be less clear whether an individual administrator may impose such a ban for good cause, over the objection of the editor concerned, without first convening a noticeboard discussion and obtaining consensus. Reasonable arguments can be offered on both sides of this policy question, so it should be decided through policy discussion rather than an ArbCom decision. Any such discussion should also provided a clear procedure regarding where and how a user who wishes to dispute such a ban may do so. In the interests of keeping the discussion within reasonable confines of time, I have included an aspirational deadline in the proposal. (Please note that this proposal would be in addition to, not in lieu of, any remedies directed at the individual parties.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the Committee should not write policy. But I think that we can gauge whether admin or users are acting outside of norms to the extent that it violates Wikipedia community norms or policy, and the admin needs to receive sanctions for the violation. Additionally, I do not think that the Committee should impose rulings that freeze policy. We need to allow policy to flow from usual practices as they evolve. This has always been the wiki norm.

To the specifics of this case, I do not think that Community norms should ever stop an admin from doing blocks or topic bans for fear that ArbCom would admonish them as long as the user has the option to have an admin action reviewed, and the admin is not involved. For us to say otherwise would be overstepping our role, I think.

While the Committee can encourage the Community to discuss an idea, discussion that is precipitated from a case is likely to have case specific overtones that would not make for good general policy. So, I would rather that the discussion be tabled until later or that the general ideas be well delineated rather than importing the minutia from this situation into the policy. So, I support the idea of discussion to clarify the Community thoughts on the matter, but I not convinced that meaningful policy can be written now unless there is a long period for discussion, and many people not involved with this case are brought into the discussion. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Agree - I agree that there is a need to clarify these issues and that a focused community discussion is the appropriate venue, not an ArbCom decision. I am unconcerned with the specific details of how this is carried out so long as significant community wide participation is encouraged and advertised so as to legitimize the effort and its outcome. --GoRight (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea - I was just logging in to suggest something similar, albeit less eloquently. But in accepting that the policy is unclear, it will be difficult for the committee to sanction WMC on the specific basis of the topic ban - the circumstances and subsequent activity will have to be the focus of sanctions for consistency Fritzpoll (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support This would be an extremely constructive outcome of this ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support This goes to the heart of the matter. Beyond Abd's idiosyncratic interpretation of policy and cabalism, and verbose pontifications thereto which effectively prevent any direct response to diffuse wording, the issue comes down to whether WMC was justified in placing a unilateral page-ban. Certainly bainer's presentation here shows a prior assumption that such bans are not accepted. This issue needs to be debated by the community and a determination reached as to consensus, if such is possible. Certainly, no remedies should be based on a prinicple which is so unclear. I'll also note that Abd had every opportunity to challenge his "purported" page ban in any number of fora, but chose instead to use his own talk page and various guerilla tactics. Rather than actually confront the issue, he instead chose to get another editor in trouble. (Just so you know where my bias lies) Franamax (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this. The most likely outcome of the Committee passing a motion like this or anything else falsely implying that William M. Connolley acted in a controversial way or in a way that was not fully supported by consensus is to send a message to the community that the community cannot decide on bans in an informal and flexible manner as it has done for years now. It would be as if the infamous "votes for banning" era had not taught us anything, and the Committee was asking us to go back to the bad old ways. --TS 03:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony, there is no question that the community can decide to impose page or topic bans, and it has been done regularly for some time now. The question that Newyorkbrad proposes to put before the community is whether or not an individual administrator can impose a page or topic ban without discussion on the applicable noticeboard. Please do not conflate these two methods of page/topic banning editors. Risker (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you follow the case pages, you will have noticed that at least 3 admins have declared that they have used this technique for years to good effect and without serious controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to those involved, I don't consider 3 admins to be reflective of broad community practices. Nor do I consider the fact that said actions may have worked in those isolated cases to be reflective of there being a broad community acceptance of the practice. If individual administrators, absent the authority of discretionary sanctions issued by ArbCom, are to be allowed to unilaterally impose bans of indefinite duration and arbitrary scope on individual editors then I certainly believe that a broad community consensus for this practice should be demonstrated. --GoRight (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support --GoRight (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

how many more times are you going to vote for this one? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Proposed principles

No grudge matches

1) The purpose of arbitration is to resolve issues that the community has been unable to address through other means. It is not a venue for the pursuit of personal grudges. This principle applies equally to editors, administrators, and arbitrators.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Seems straightforward enough. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Good principle, but I'm not sure there's an effective objective way of distinguishing the two. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mentorship

1) The Arbitration Committee will assign Abd a mentor for an indefinite period of not less than one year. The terms of the mentorship are as follows:

• A mentor will be chosen by the Arbitration Committee at its discretion without suggestions from any of the parties or others. Individuals who spontaneously volunteer to serve as mentor will be summarily disqualified.
• After the mentor is chosen, parties to the case or other members of the community may raise concerns about the suitability and qualifications of the mentor. The Committee will give due consideration to any such concerns but is not bound to act on them.
• The mentor will have the broadest possible discretion to guide Abd's behavior, including discretion to enforce such guidance by blocks of Abd, bans of Abd, page bans of Abd, or any other restrictions on Abd's activity throughout all parts of English Wikipedia.
• Given the stipulation that the mentor will have authority to issue blocks or bans, and that this is a nuanced and difficult case, it is necessary that the mentor be an experienced administrator.
• Abd or others may appeal any action by the mentor. Such appeals shall be made directly to the Arbitration Committee at the Requests for Arbitration page and not through any other means. Any response to such appeals shall be interpreted as having the backing of the Committee as a body, whether such response is made collectively or by an individual arbitraror.
• At the end of the initial one year term, the mentor will advise the Committee as to whether lifting of mentorship is warranted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Am I correct to understand that this proposes that we somehow cajole an unwilling administrator into the role of mentor? And that once we have twisted their arm, they will be subject to the complaints of everyone else about our selection, at which point the Committee might well change its collective mind? Risker (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Yes. Maybe. Apply in order. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Mentorship has at best a chequered history. In this case, it simply wouldn't work. Prefer Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop#Abd_banned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The above wording may seem unusually formal and strict, but Abd has stated that if ArbComm wants me to "take a hint" from the decision by reading between the lines, I'm afraid I'm unlikely to do that. The ADHD is real, and we tend to read literally, we don't understand "between the lines," or at least not well. If ArbComm has expectations of me that are not being stated, and they aren't for behaviors that come naturally to me, the committee may be disappointed. The very tight and explicit wording therefore is an attempt to provide Abd with the unambiguous statement that he has said is needed. With regard to specific provisions, my rationale is as follows:

• The choice of mentor must not only be impartial, but must be seen to be impartial. The restrictions on choice of mentor are specified to avoid any possibility of manipulation of the process by any of the parties soliciting a pliant mentor behind the scenes. It is reasonable to allow after-the-fact concerns to be raised about the choice of mentor, or the mentor's approach during the period of mentorship, though as stated the Committee will not be obligated to act on them.
• Given that much of the dispute in this case centers on interpretations of administrative actions, and in particular on the authority of administrators to impose sanctions, the proposal makes clear the mentor's authority to issue such actions toward Abd at the mentor's discretion. It then provides an avenue for appeal. The provision that all responses to such appeals will be interpreted as being backed by the whole committee is to forestall complaints that one arbitrator communicated a decision but that this did not represent a legitimate response.
• The opinion as to whether mentorship should be lifted rests with the mentor. The words "whether the mentorship should be lifted" indicates that the default is for mentorship to continue.

Finally this should not be taken to mean that I believe mentorship is appropriate in this case -- very much the contrary, in fact. But for better or worse that is where the Committee appears to be headed, so the terms must be crystal clear. I have tried to avoid any possible ambiguity but others are welcome to point out fuzziness. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Opposed - Totally over-constrained for no real purpose or advantage. I have no problem with the ArbCom retaining final approval over any mentorship arrangements that are deemed necessary in a final decision, i.e. such as the suitability of Abd's selection of who the mentor will be and the final conditions of the mentorship. I see no reasonable reason to give Abd's detractors here any leverage in the situation whatsoever, which this proposal seems to clearly attempt to do. Allowing such leverage only invites additional drama and harassment of Abd. Final review (even if it is off-wiki) by the ArbCom should impart a sufficient level of impartiality to the final arrangements. --GoRight (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Mentorships are typically used in cases where an otherwise productive contributor has a hangup on one or a small number of issues which can be remedied with appropriate coaching. Since Abd doesn't make any useful contributions, and still doesn't think he's done anything wrong, I fail to see what could be gained by a mentorship. Raul654 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerking

1) The Arbitration Committee will endeavor to provide more effective supervision of future cases. The assigned clerk will be reasonably available and will be advised to act firmly against personal attacks, goading, extended off-topic discussion, and other inappropriate behavior. If a case must be left without a clerk for an extended period, the case pages will protected until a clerk can be found.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not particularly relevant, although the on-wiki and in-case behaviour of the participants remains actionable, as always, either by direct intervention where required, or by aspects of the proposed decision. Risker (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Sounds like a rather good idea. Could also be usefully be expanded to request that Arbcomm deal expiditiously with cases. The extended discussion finding is especially germane; it is clear that arbcomm failure to limit wurble (indeed, arbcomm opposition to attempts to limit wurble) has lead to a case that is too long for anybody to read William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I also second Stephans comments William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Clerks don't need to be online 24/7 but they should be reasonably available and have both the authority and the will to keep order. In a perfect world we could leave a case like this unsupervised for a week, but alas, this is not such a world. This case degenerated into a slanging match. Not only was there unseemly behavior but the sheer quantity of argumentation spiraled out of control. As of last Friday the Workshop page alone was a little over 100,000 words or 207 single-spaced pages (compare this to 84,000 words in The Communist Manifesto or 70,000 words in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer). And that's not counting the Evidence page, case talk pages, or other material squirreled away in subpages, diffs, and so on. The Committee cannot reasonably be expected to thoroughly and carefully read so much material, and the indications here are that indeed they did not. The consequences of arbitration decisions for both the community and individuals are too great to let important points get lost in a bucket of recriminations and noise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Very apt comments about the length. When I read Tom Sawyer, at least I get to enjoy fine English prose and a witty story line. I'd also suggest that ArbCom takes a more active and public role during the initial phase of the case, with early questions and comments. Non-transparency was one of the major complaints in the ArbCom RfC, and if we wait until the pages have become an impenetrable mess like this, few people will be willing to assume that all Arbs have actually carefully studied the evidence and arguments, and few people will be able to understand the reasoning (if any) behind a decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(sigh) As I've said before - multiple times - if a party or other user felt that something needed dealing with, all they had to do was contact me or another clerk. We're not difficult to get hold of. I have made efforts to control behavior in this case; this should be evident to several users here, as I've contacted several directly about various matters and threatened the whole lot of you with blocks at one point. This case (length possibly excepted) is not unusual in any regard; tensions in an Arbitration case usually run high, lots of back-and-forth and apparent vindictive behavior is commonplace between parties, and off-topic discussions do happen and in some cases can be helpful in providing additional background to the Arbitrators. Many people have asked me to deal with things that frankly are not actionable - attacks on Wikipedia Review, long posts, etc. - and become frustrated when I told them there was nothing I could do.

I do not feel as though this is at all appropriate to be included as a remedy within this case, or in any part of the Final Decision. If a party or user feels clerking procedures in general merit some discussion and/or reform, they should bring it to the Clerk's noticeboard or other appropriate forum. If a party or user feels as though my own actions need improving, then I would (hopefully for the last time) ask them to bring them to me directly rather than insinuating things. I have been subjected to various accusations of bias, incompetence, and failing to perform my duties as a clerk throughout this case and am quite frankly tired of it. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the intent of the proposal was to impugn your character or competence (or that of clerks in general), Hersfold. I believe that the problem that SBHB (and others) are seeing here is one of a lack of supervision and involvement by the ArbCom itself. I can't speak for others, but it looks like you've been hung out to dry on this dog's breakfast of a Workshop. The ArbCom appears to have done an inadequate job of framing your responsibilities and powers to discourage off-topic discussion and proposals, or to sanction individuals who act inappropriately — even given that this is a high-tension environment. (I can't believe that the behaviour and style of proposals we've seen here are an example of what the ArbCom wants to see from parties to Arbitration.) Any fire you're feeling personally is simply because you're the most visible target; the Arbitrators themselves – with a few rare and very welcome exceptions – haven't deigned to participate in the /Workshop development here, and you're the official channel we're given.

Making matters worse is that the ArbCom completely dropped the ball while you were on vacation. Despite your giving appropriate notice to them, they failed to make any suitable arrangements to monitor this case in your absence. Apparently several of them have continued to abdicate their responsibility to manage the Arbitration process even after your return — in encouraging you to find ways to archive portions of this /Workshop, they've completely failed to grasp that it's their responsibility to make a damn decision, already. (Newyorkbrad's recognition of this point [104] is a breath of fresh air). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

TOAT, I think you're assigning a bit too much of the blame on ArbCom. In regards to my absence, it's not (exactly) ArbCom's responsibility to assign clerks; that's more or less arranged between ourselves. I didn't provide the other clerks too much warning of my departure, and failed to follow up on it until it was too late. In regards to the archiving, I was the one who asked ArbCom for ideas on how to archive the page (not the other way around), in response to some comments from participants about difficulties accessing this page. I'm not sure what's delaying the proposed decision either, and agree that a prompt posting of it would be very helpful, but I can't allow ArbCom to be blamed for things that they are not at fault for. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, all right then — if you feel that you gave inadequate notice, then yes, I am prepared to lay at least some blame at your feet for not communicating in a more timely manner. Nevertheless, the ArbCom (by practice and policy) is ultimately responsible for how the Arbitration process operates, and the buck does stop with them if cases are mishandled. Clerks haven't been around for that long; I'm sure that all of our Arbitrators remember the days when it was Arbs who had to perform all the clerkish tasks, and in the absence of a clerk they ought to be able to step in to do the work themselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They do - and the Arbitrators have been very supportive behind the scenes. Being mainly on the clerks mailing list, this isn't directly visible to parties here, no, but I've always received prompt and useful responses from them when I've had a question. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They found a substitute while Hersfold was gone (me). I took too much initiative with the case, and it was not well-received. It was hard to keep up with everything new while catching up with the old stuff at the same time. I agree that clerks should not be assigned to cases if they're not active, but, as Hersfold said, if there are any problems, users post at the clerk's noticeboard. I simply must stress that none of this is ArbCom's fault. They went out of their way to find a sub, and Hersfold returned quickly thereafter. hmwitht 18:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me, based on the discussion you referred to ([105]), that it wasn't an issue of you 'taking too much initiative'. It looks more like the ArbCom (and other clerks, and the parties, and the hangers-on) were sending very conflicting messages to you about what the appropriate way was to handle evidence in excess of the 1000-word guideline. I raised this particular problem before in my own proposals (#Review of Arbitration policy). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As a clerk in training, I cannot say that I wasn't receiving conflicting messages from several different parties. I agree with that statement, although, as Risker said, this discussion is not really relevant to this case. hmwitht 19:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned I'll comment briefly. TOAT is roughly correct with regard to the intent of my proposal and remarks. I tried to word it sufficiently vaguely so that we could take a lesson from the present case without picking on anyone in particular but that's a tough balance. I suspect that just as in real life, much of the problem comes down to communication. Hersfold, as a clerk, did what he was supposed to do -- we don't want clerks going off on their own dispensing frontier justice. Maybe if an arb or two had left him a note saying "that case is getting out of hand; go in there and whack some sense into those guys" we wouldn't have all these words complaining about why the case has all these words. But that water has been passed under the bridge by now.

Things like assigning blame and requesting or offering apologies ultimately don't get us very far. I'd much rather use this episode as a spur to think of ways to keep future cases from veering off track. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• Here is what I see as a significant dropping of the ball by ArbCom and/or the Clerk and/or the system that doesn't clearly describe responsibilities: The case opened on July 15th. On July 20th, Enric Naval asked for a two week extension of the evidence period. Three Arbs commented, all critical of the extension, the last on July 23rd. By my calculation, the normal evidence period would have been over on July 23rd, the extended one (if the extension would have been granted, which it had not been) would have been over on August 6th. No formal decision was ever made, or enforced, so we still have people adding to the evidence pages on August 17th. Had the case stuck to either the original or the extended time line, we would, for example, have been spared the drama of Abd violating his block and WMC blocking him. Letting a case like this smoldering for weeks beyond schedule increased ArbCom workload (because of the tons of evidence and comments they have to digest), and allows discontent between the involved editors to increase for no good reason and to no good ends. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to thank the clerks for their hard work and dedication to the project. I do not have any problem with how this case is being administered especially given that Hersfold is known to have been on vacation. --GoRight (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I had no problem related to Hersfold being away. Hersfold left a message telling where to find a clerk; I asked for assistance from another clerk who happened to be online at the time, and stuff got done. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by 2over0

Proposed principles

Make comments based on content, not contributors

1) Meaningful consensus is attained through rational discussion and careful weighing of points raised. Taking a position based solely or primarily on the identities of participating editors rather than their arguments is disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Such behavior has been insinuated and asserted all over the place in this case, so it might be worthwhile to remind people to be more transparent in their reasoning. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Ah, because, ah ... ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Coverage in articles should be appropriately weighted

2) Articles should distill coverage from the best sources available. Secondary sources compiled by intellectually independent observers are generally preferred to primary sources. Text should be weighted according to each source's reliability to the topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. RS covers this. However, there is an agenda being pursued by this proposal. My assertion is that, yes, there are old reliable sources, such as a famous editorial in a highly respected journal in 1989 or 1990, but not peer-reviewed secondary or other likely-objective sources, that term cold fusion "pathological science", "junk science", etc. And we have more recent peer-reviewed secondary sources that treat it as real science, with real results. There is no conflict between these sources, in fact, because recent views and reviews trump older views and reviews. Is my claim true? This is a matter for editorial consensus to detemine, and we do it edit by edit, one small step at a time. The principle is sound. If my claims about the status of cold fusion were dependent on primary sources, I'd not have a leg to stand on. --Abd (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obvious, but bears repeating. Goes with FoF below. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Abd's treatment of cold fusion

1) Abd (talk · contribs) has consistently and disruptively edited to warp coverage of cold fusion away from a neutral summary of the reliability-weighted preponderance of sources. Evidence: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. The only way to determine what "neutral summary" is, is to discuss it and find consensus. The article, as it stands, represents long-term active exclusion of peer-reviewed and academic secondary sources that are rejected by a faction of editors, quite obviously, because of a belief on the part of these editors that these sources "contradict mainstream science." But that's circular. The mainstream never went through a process of careful examination of the cold fusion claims in 1989-1990. There are secondary sources from then which, for example, rejected the neutron radiation claims of Fleischmann, but there is consensus on all sides that whatever is happening in those experimental cells, it doesn't produce neutron radiation at high enough levels to explain the excess heat. There were experimental results which failed to confirm the excess heat findings. We have later peer-reviewed secondary source (multiple reviews) confirming that the basic phenomenon, excess heat -- which might have a non-nuclear explanation, one proposed one is hydrino theory -- is real. (Please, I don't support that theory, but we have RS on it.) There is no contradiction between these sources. By asserting that we should rely upon P.R. secondary sources as the foundation of our presentation of the science, and when I assert the missing later reviews, I am perceived as POV-pushing, and that is easily understandable. To conclude, however, that I have actually edited to warp coverage would require a detailed examination, which, I'd claim, is not possible here, and, by accepting this proposed finding, ArbComm would have to make a content judgment; rather it should defer to ordinary process, and if, as part of that, the community or ArbComm examined my behavior in relation to a manifest consensus, and found me to be tendentiously pushing a POV contrary to WP:RS or WP:UNDUE policies, such a finding would be quite proper. However, that is very much not my intention and very much not what I do. I seek consensus, always, and I'd have no problem with a page ban from the article, because I don't need to be able to edit the article in order to propose sources and text and facilitate or otherwise participate in finding consensus. --Abd (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. This might be too close to a ruling on content as worded, but the intent is to point out that tendentious editing of fringe theories can yield a measurable detriment to the encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support He continues to do so even on the case pages. Mathsci (talk)

• Abd's continued wikilawyering here to justify the inclusion of pseudoscientific nonsense about the discredited hydrino theory in the cold fusion article shows that has he lost all contact with reality. Normally that would indicate that an indefinite topic ban from the community was on the way, independently of ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Content issue; arbcom doesn't care about content. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reject Per Boris. the preceeding unsigned comment was added by GoRight at 14:15:51 on 2009/08/11

Support - the arbcom doesn't usually decide what the contents of an article should be, but it's certainly within their remit to determine that a user has disrupted and/or damaged an article. This case has echoes of the Plautus satire arbitration case. Raul654 (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Per Boris; Also, Abd has based his edits on reliable sources (e.g. published by American Chemical Society and Oxford University Press). Consensus has not yet been reached about which sources (and which parts of one source) are to be preferred and about how to determine due weight. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reject, because the definition of "reliably weighted sources" is too stringent, when it is not allowed to include, for example, the biggest publishing house of science-related material in China. A considerable portion of Abd's writings were about reasons why more sources could be acceptable as "reliable". So, as I pointed out some time back, one way to reduce the arguments on the CF talk page is to broaden the allowed list of sources. V (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Abd is topic banned

1.0) Abd (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and talk pages for a period of one year. This ban does not include ongoing mediation, nor should it be construed to limit his right of reply to any discussions opened at other pages.

1.1) Abd (talk · contribs) is banned from editing policy pages and talk pages, and from Cold fusion and related articles and talk pages for a period of one year. This ban does not include ongoing mediation, nor should it be construed to limit his right of reply to any discussions opened at other pages.

1.2) Abd (talk · contribs) is banned for a period of one year from editing any article or talk page in Category:Fringe science or Category:Pseudoscience or their proper subcategories. If there is doubt concerning whether a particular article is covered by this ban, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement may be consulted. Cold fusion and related articles and talk pages are explicitly included. This ban does not include ongoing mediation, nor should it be construed to limit his right of reply to any discussions opened at other pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. Restrictions on my behavior may indeed be appropriate (as a possibility, I'm not accepting that I deserve them) and I would voluntarily accept reasonable ones. However, please consider this: I was skeptical about Cold fusion when I noticed the blacklistings of two major web sites in the field, which I'd never looked at before. I may have read the article years ago, maybe not. I was unfamiliar with the more recent research, and I'd been very aware of the 1989-1990 flap then. Because of the blacklistings, a process issue of concern to me (a concern subsequently confirmed by ArbComm), I read the article and started to review the sources. As with others, such as, rather famously, Robert Duncan (physicist), I became convinced that there was a real phenomenon here and that, in fact, the evidence was overwhelming that there was some kind of nuclear process happening. Now, if we ban everyone who arrives at this POV, and tries to document the basis for it in the article, following policies and guidelines and seeking consensus, we will long-term warp our coverage. And we have already done that, we banned User:Pcarbonn. I will elsewhere request that ArbComm lift the ban of Pcarbonn from Talk:Cold fusion, leaving the page ban in place and possibly even making the page ban permanent, because Pcarbonn currently has a conflict of interest, being employed as a researcher in the field. We also banned ScienceApologist, who also has a form of conflict of interest, as a particle physicist, but whose expertise is highly valuable. But he was banned only from the article, not from Talk, but with Pcarbonn gone, he was left with little to do! Our article is highly deficient on both sides. --Abd (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

not keen. Prefer a simple ban. Abd doesn't really care about CF, or even fringe science. He is here to have endless dicussions on talk pages and if any of these are implemented will happily skip over to chat pointlessly about something else William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Approve it together with #Abd_editing_restrictions. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. 1.0 is the remedy I think is best-supported by /Evidence as retaining productive contributions while minimizing disruption. 1.1 and 1.2 are inspired by Stephan Schultz, above. This remedy stems from /Evidence. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, this avoids the issue raised above regarding whether the community consensus was for a one month or indefinite ban. This remedy might be coupled with #Abd banned. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment If ArbCom is unwilling to enact such a page-ban or topic ban, it will presumably then be left up to the community to decide. Mathsci (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Covers over the symptom without getting to the disease. He'll just go on to use the same disruptive tactics in different articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I would prefer an indefinite ban. He doesn't contribute anything of value. There's no sense in trying to rehabilitate someone who has nothing to offer. But if you want to go ahead with this remedy, I suggest dropping the one year time limits, and adding

1.3) Abd is prohibited from interpreting policy.

That should substantially cut down on his penchant for making claims about policy that are patently false. Also, these remedies need a strict enforcement mechanism for Abd's inevitable attempts to skirt them. Raul654 (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I struck the time periods - if this remedy follows a full ban, the times would need to be tweaked anyway. [I]nterpreting policy might be better as making statements of or reference to policy to avoid disruptive arguments over what constitutes interpretation. That, however, seems to me to put too many twisted constraints on their editing - I would rather a full ban in that case. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, if anyone can think of a way to say never pull that disruptive polling stunt ever again, I think that would be good. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you trying to out wiki-lawyer him? If you think he's going to try to skirt your remedies with wiki-lawyering -- and frankly, there's a mountain of evidence here to suggest he will -- why not just ban him? Even though he considers them to be warnings he can disregard, the rest of the community isn't going to buy his snake oil. Raul654 (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was trying for precise language, but fair enough. Unless ArbCom is prepared to issue an indefinite ban, there should be protection for Cold fusion in place at the end of any ban. The magnificent return of DanaUllman (talk · contribs) to Talk:Homeopathy neatly illustrates the dangers of failing to do so. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Abd makes valuable contributions in many areas. Often Abd investigates a situation thoroughly, then convinces people of a position which becomes broadly accepted by the community. Abd has investigated cold fusion for the purpose of adding to the cold fusion articles, and the project can benefit from his knowledge. Banning yet another editor on the same side of a content dispute will warp the POV of the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support 1.2 (or complete ban) Wizzy…☎ 07:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd and William M. Connolley instructed to disengage

2) Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) are requested to disengage from present disputes and avoid involving themselves in any discussion in which the other is already engaged. This includes disputing or reverting particular edits, though if amicable relations are maintained work may continue on the same articles. William M. Connolley is further enjoined from taking any administrative action with respect to Abd.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. I have no intention -- and no history -- of following WMC around and harassing him. In this case, WMC came to me. I'd hate to see a situation where one or the other of us is prohibited from participating in a discussion simply because the other commented there first. My mentorship, assuming that passes, will cover all this, my mentor can suggest -- or direct! -- that I abstain from this or that discussion. WMC is a relatively moderate editor, we have sometimes cooperated, and our conflict was only over his penchant for using admin tools while he was involved. I warned him about it on his Talk page, he didn't take it well, so eventually I stopped. Note that if I actually harass him, I can be warned and blocked for that. There was also, in the other direction, no history on the part of WMC of harassing me. The Cold fusion incident was unique in our history. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

oppose - as you point out, it failed before, why repeat failure? And, of course, its very hard to implement. Presumably that would ban both of us from CF and its talk page (or are we expected to guess which one of us would continue to be allowed to edit there?); potentially it would ban us both from these pages; Abd would no longer be able to discuss 3RR policy or even the question of blanking user talk pages. Its just not going to work William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Something along these lines was tried with Martinphi/ScienceApologist. If I recall correctly, it was promptly wikilawyered, but maybe limiting the scope of the interaction ban will make it more effective. Application of this remedy should be monitored for gaming. The limitation on use of administrative tools should be taken to reflect a current state of involvement with each other; the recent block and other issues are discussed above. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:TenOfAllTrades

Proposed principles

Operation of the Arbitration process

1) Arbitration is the final formal stage in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. The conduct of the Arbitration process is governed by the members of the Arbitration Committee under the guidelines laid out in the Arbitration policy. While day-to-day clerical and organizational tasks are usually delegated to Arbitration Clerks, it is the Arbitration Committee that is ultimately responsible for monitoring and regulating the Arbitration process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

would be nice but I'm not sure its all true. In particular is The conduct of the Arbitration process is governed by the members of the Arbitration Committee under the guidelines laid out in the Arbitration policy? I think you've presented evidence that important elements of those guidelines are neglected. There is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by the Committee. is one; Evidence and brief arguments may be added another. But indeed a lack of active governance by arbcomm is one of the problems with this case William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Based directly on the linked policy pages; the buck stops at the Committee. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Timely communication

2) During the course of an Arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee and its Clerks are expected to communicate regularly with case participants about the status of the case, and to offer feedback to participants about received evidence and proposed remedies in a clear, timely manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, sorta. ArbComm should set up procedures for the active guidance of the participants. If the committee is unlikely to accept a proposal, for example, much tendentious debate over it could be avoided. In the other direction, if an arbitrator needs more evidence or information to judge claims made by an editor, the editor should be actively queried to provide that. Without this kind of interaction, we are sometimes clueless as to what is important and what is not, so text blossoms with evidence and debate over moot issues. Good proposal, TOAT. My only problem is with "expected." "are expected" may be replaced with "expect," in which case the committee, by passing this, would be expressing its intentions, intentions that may not always be realized for practical reasons.--Abd (talk) 17:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

support. There should be cross-examination. And just for once, I agree with Abd, up until "...moot issues" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Participants in Arbitration aren't expected to work alone, in the dark. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, also Abd's comment is well placed, though both 'are expected', and 'expect' should be true. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Decorum in Arbitration proceedings

3) All editors participating in the Arbitration process are expected and required to conduct themselves with decorum. All participants are expected to remain civil in their interactions with one another. All editors are expected to remember that Arbitration is a process for resolution of disputes, and not a soapbox or forum. Arbitrators and their clerks are expected to intervene where editors engage in conduct inappropriate to this venue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, though one person's pet theory may be another person's absolutely essential evidence. Clerks can and should make ad-hoc judgments, and editors should be able to appeal those judgments directly to the committee, and get a response expeditiously. Better or clearer process for this should be provided. Several motions were presented on the Workshop page which needed timely response or they were moot. There never was any decisive response. One of the principles of good deliberative process is to get fast decisions on procedural issues, debate over them should be avoided. We do or we don't. Clerks can function like meeting chairs, making ad-hoc rulings that are immediately appealable to the "sovereign," which in democratic meetings is the assembly, which immediately votes on an appeal from the chair without debate. Here, the sovereign is the Committee, regulating its own process. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Editors – even editors who hate each others' guts – need to focus on the dispute in question, not on further arguing their pet theories or personal opinions. ArbCom is expected to enforce this principle. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, Abd, I think that even essential evidence can be presented using civil wording. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Admissible evidence

4) The bulk of evidence presented to the Committee ought reasonably to bear on some aspect of the dispute under consideration. In practice, most evidence ought to be referred to in some proposed principle, finding of fact, or remedy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. In this case, because the evidence presented immediately turned into a laundry list of complaints, and what I could see as related editors piled in with more and more evidence, I was faced with the apparent necessity of showing the relationship between the editors. That doesn't change the cogency or lack of cogency of their evidence, but it does change possible interpretations as to weight. In spite of theory, numbers can count. If the clerks had acted to immediately suppress irrelevant evidence, my very controversial (to some! -- and not to others!) cabal claim would not have been needed. Removed evidence can be replaced by a link to History, with a comment that the evidence was removed because, in the judgment of the removing clerk, it was not sufficiently relevant to the case, and all participants can presume that this decision stands unless an appeal brings it back. Notice my proposed suggestion to editors: don't debate proposals unless they are seconded. This suggests a variation: Don't comment in response to evidence that may be quickly removed as moot. If an editor thinks evidence is moot, the editor can object to a clerk (page for clerks for this case, possibly) and the clerk would, without debate (or with debate if the clerk decides it is needed, but that is on a separate page or the Clerk's Talk), rule on the request (and act on it, if appropriate), which, again, would be appealable to ArbComm. This way, everyone knows what is necessary and what is not. Thanks, again, TOAT. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Don't waste time on irrelevant evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, though cases may need 207 singly spaced pages of evidence (or more). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Extraordinary length of case material

1) Both the /Evidence and /Workshop pages for this Arbitration have grown to extraordinary length. (My God - just look at all that text. The two pages are closing rapidly on a full megabyte of text.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

There have been cases with larger evidence and workshop pages, but some of those cases have had lots of findings of fact and remedies. What might be useful to document is some ratio of the combined size of the evidence and workshop pages, to the number of findings of fact and remedies (a signal to noise ratio). Overall, documenting the size of past cases is something that can be useful to get an idea of whether a case is truly getting out of control. Arbitrators indicating which sorts of evidence are useful and guiding the process somewhat, can be useful, but that can sometimes skew the presentation towards the views of a single arbitrator. The usual process used is to let the parties present what they will (within reason), and to then have the drafting arbitrator do a thorough run-down of it, followed by presenting a proposed decision on the workshop page (the stage we are at now), and then the other arbs agree or disagree, based on their own readings of the evidence and workshop pages. An alternative is to just have the two parties (and no-one else) presenting evidence, and others have to petition ArbCom to be allowed to present evidence. There are many other alternatives as well. Some cases earlier this year were dealt with differently - notably the MZMcBride case had more use of the arbitrators asking questions of the party, and the Ryulong case was a completely new setup. It might not be inaccurate to say that there are as many different views on the best way to do things, as there are individual arbitrators. Me? I think well-presented timelines help to give good context to disputes. I've also always thought that a discussion by arbitrators when a case opens, and before evidence is presented, can help keep the scope focused. But there are also cases where other matters raised during the course of the presentation of evidence, have factored heavily in the proposed decision. In other words, the flexibility to consider other matters is also needed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Yes, obvious. There are process solutions I won't propose here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 17:57, August 11, 2009 UTC (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence#warnings_and_advices went beyond what_I_can_present_in_the_evidence page_due_to_length_problems shows that a large part of the fault is down to Ryan Postlethwaite, who appears to encourage users to make the evidence as long as you want in complete mockery of the 1,000 word limit. Once he had said that, there was no possibility of stopping the cruft. Regrettably, Carcharoth (oh dear, and others) appear to condone this too. I also note C's comment above that this is only to be done within reason - that has clearly failed in this case, and is so vague a term that it could not be meaningfully used to limit evidence length William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Obvious at a glance. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, obvious. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This case is very similar in many respects to the Abd/JzG case, and I assume it would have around the same number of findings of facts and remedies, but it is way outsized in comparison to that case. I haven't looked at the workshop page of the earlier case yet, but a comparison of the evidence might be enlightening: The evidence in this case amounts to almost 500,000 characters of text, over 300,000 of it from Abd alone, and 400,000 of it from Abd, GoRight, Coppertwig and Ikip. In the earlier case, the evidence amounted to 43,440 characters total from 12 editors; the volume of Abd's evidence was not out of line with the size of the evidence sections of other editors. Woonpton (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd's presentation of evidence is inappropriate

2) The evidence presented by Abd is lengthy, scattered, difficult to view, and often both inflammatory and irrelevant to the proceedings. He has used these proceedings as a forum in which to present his own theories on Wikipedia governance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response. Definitely scattered. You would be too if it happened to you. My evidence in this case is a mess, and it largely has to do with needing -- at least I thought I needed -- to respond to many other editors piling in from the faction I've claimed exists. However, the bulk of my "evidence" at this point consists of drafts of responses to each editor's evidence, where I thought a response was needed, not the "cabal evidence." This is not at the top level, and my intention has been to bring what is crucial from that either to the top or to emphasize and demphasize at the next level down. (Truly crucial responses would be at the top.) In fact, however, I've been overwhelmed by this case, beyond my capacities, and I simply don't have time. I'm, so far, pretty happy with what indications I have of an ArbComm decision coming, so this may not be important in the end. Issues have been raised here that may be much better addressed in cases with much narrower focus, and with, hopefully, strict clerking, as suggested above, which could work wonders. I may or may not take a role in those cases, it depends on my mentor, and, until I have a mentor, I don't plan to do anything seriously controversial. Like file an RfAr, unless I'm blocked or banned, in spite of my efforts, and need the support of the committee.

Response to TOAT. If you have any suggestions about how to deal with determined factions of editors, including a number with tools, reinforcing each other in violating guidelines and ArbComm rulings, I'm all ears. I raised the issue because it's an important one and it has many effects that keep coming back to this committee. I do have some proposed principles, findings, and maybe even some remedies to put up, but ... it takes time. My short posts, please keep in mind, when I'm dealing with new stuff, take extraordinary amounts of time. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Accurate, but I'm not sure that we should punish people for presenting bad evidence, due to the chilling effect. If an evidence is so bad, the editor can be asked by the clerks to refactor it, and it can be removed or refactored directly by clerks if necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

support although you could add "and still partly in draft form even at this late stage of the case" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I see testimony scattered across at least fourteen subpages, plus at least two links to old versions of the Evidence subpage. The largest part of Abd's evidence by far relates to his assertion that "There is a cabal". Despite making this bold and inflammatory claim (loudly and repeatedly across /Evidence and /Workshop) he has not proposed a single principle, finding of fact, or remedy based on this assertion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure, inappropriate. Excessive, and a lot of it unused, yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• I can help you rewrite and condense your writings Abd. I think you are very intellegnt, but you desperately need an editor. I don't know how many people have told you this. It only hurts you, because no one reads what you write, and people dismiss your points. That said though, Enric_Naval's section on the evidence page is probably the worst one., with doznes of Subsections for single sentences (I note the irony that he agrees about Abd style). If there is going to be a clean up include Naval too. Tenofalltrades, can you agree that Naval needs to rewrite his section too? Ikip (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Extensive off-topic discussion

3) There has been extensive threaded discussion and argument on the /Workshop page. Much of this discussion has been off-topic, tangentially-related, and/or soapboxing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Certainly a mess William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Just look up at this mess. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Failure to regulate process

4) The Arbitration Committee has not intervened effectively (directly or through their Clerks) to prevent excessive and irrelevant discussion. No evidence or workshop discussion was ever refactored or redacted. Evidence and workshop discussion were almost never refactored, redacted, or truncated by Clerks or the Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Arbcomm has clearly been derelict in its duty here (incidentally there has been at least one tiny refactor, when Hersfold shortened some Abd-cruft after Abd refused to; but that was just one tiny part of an enormous heap) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Amended. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Follows from 2) & 3). Frankly, there hasn't been any intervention apparent at all. On 19 July Ryan Postlethwaite notified editors who had submitted over-long blocks of evidence, and on 21 July Hersfold notified all participants that further disruptive conduct would result in blocks. On 26 July, Hersfold sent out another round of notifications to editors who were over length on their evidence. As far as I know, no Clerk or Arbitrator acted to refactor over-long submissions, and no blocks were ever issued for misconduct during the case. Moreover, this lack of supervision may be at least partly responsible for the more ill-advised actions of the parties late in the /Workshop process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, when the clerk was on holiday, no-one took over. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

The Committee apologizes

1) The Arbitration Committee recognizes that it has not maintained an appropriate level of oversight of this case. Through this failure, the Committee acknowledges that it has wasted the time of many members of the community, and made the stressful process of Arbitration unnecessarily disruptive, complicated, and unpleasant. The Arbitration Committee apologies to the parties to this Arbitration, to other participating individuals, and to the community at large.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I certainly wish that we were better able to make ArbCom cases go more smoothly for all involved. Currently, we are working on ways to have cases better managed but we have not hit the mark yet. And I truly do appreciate the recognition that ArbCom's work is not easy. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agree with others that this is not necessary but agree with T that it is desirable. Would it be useful? Unclear, but on balance probably yes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The ArbCom dropped the ball here. While punitive sanctions would be unhelpful and a demand for resignation overkill, a mature acknowledgement of error is required. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not necessary. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• No, that is not necessary, but I do hope they do read all that is said and come to a conclusion that reflects the community input. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Arbs, just like all of us, are volunteers. Moreover, their job is widely acknowledged to be the most shitty job Wikipedia has to offer. This is a learning experience for all of us, and mistakes are unavoidable. I would like to the Arbs acknowledging the problem, either individually or as a group, but I don't think a apology is necessary or useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Review of Arbitration policy

2) Not more than 1 month from the closure of this case, the Arbitration Committee will present an appropriate revision or addendum to their governing policy or policies which addresses the lessons learned here. This policy revision should include explicit guidelines on how to handle the absence, retirement, vacation, or illness of clerks in such a way as to ensure that all cases continue to receive appropriate supervision. This revision should also clearly guide Clerks on when to intervene in (or refer upward) editor conduct problems on case subpages. Finally, this revision will encourage Arbitrators to participate more fully in the /Workshop portion of the Arbitration process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Any such review should cover a range of cases, not just this one. This case, in my view, has been handled no worse or better than other cases this year. I tried to start a process to get feedback on the arbitration workload and case management and processes, starting with this, but the feedback on the talk page was minimal. I'm reluctant to invest time and effort in doing that again if no-one bothers to comment (I left notices at the arbitration noticeboard, at the administrators noticeboard, at various arbitration talk pages, and the village pump, but to little avail). The general tenor seems to be that people are generally only interested in the case they are involved in, and don't really care much about other cases. To address some of the specifics, guidance was provided on the evidence talk page by clerks and arbitrators, clerks actions were taken during the case (including dealing with several socks), and the case clerk did notify both the other clerks and the arbitrators that he would be away. The fact that no replacement clerk was put in place is (in my view) the fault of the Arbitration Committee (we should have realised that this had been left hanging). I have asked the clerks to ensure that external e-mails sent to their mailing list are dealt with promptly, but because you are dealing with volunteers, it never hurts to send a follow-up e-mail if you don't hear back the first time. Arbitrator participation on workshop pages, I agree entirely, but will note that you are unlikely to ever get more than 3 or 4 participating extensively (trust me, you don't really want 14 arbitrator comments on every workshop proposal). One idea that might work is to not have any commentary on a workshop proposal unless it is seconded or commented on by an arbitrator? Would that work? Carcharoth (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. ArbCom has a crisis of trust because the community feels it's excluded from much of the ArbCom deliberations anyways. Further reducing community input seems like a terrible idea. The useful ArbCom cases I've seen so far has had Arbs involved in a dialog with the community from the beginning, so that if not agreement, at least a shared understanding can be formed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

support. Other stuff: @C (but thanks for commenting): I tried to start a process to get feedback on the arbitration workload and case management and processes, starting with this, but the feedback on the talk page was minimal - I'm not sure I even saw that page. I wouldn't have interpreted it in the way you now are. I've made a suggestion. This case, in my view, has been handled no worse or better than other cases this year - Stephan disagrees with you; and your view sounds like a counsel of despair; do you really maintain it? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. You said you're sorry, now tell us how you're going to avoid the problem in the future. If the ArbCom wishes to handle this is a seperate motion outside this case, that's fine too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: Guidance was provided... - Well, yes and no. With regard to submission of evidence, conflicting advice was offered. Clerks Ryan P. and Hersfold repeatedly advised editors that their evidence was over a 1000-word limit, and that it needed to be cut down. On the other hand, at least one Arbitrator (Newyorkbrad) has stated explicitly (and sensibly) that he has no objection to longer evidence submissions as long as they are "well-organized, reasonably described, and relevant". With regard to lack of feedback from the Arbitrators, consider the proposals by Stephen Bain. We hear essentially nothing about the case from Arbs for a couple of weeks, after dozens of proposed principles, findings, and remedies have been extensively discussed. Less than half a day after things come completely off the rails – with Abd's deliberate baiting and WMC's falling for it – Stephen presents a series of proposals to desysop and ban WMC, while offering Abd a repetition of his previous wrist-slap. While I hope it was merely a matter of bad timing, Stephen's action gave the appearance that the Committee had been ignoring the extensive /Workshop discussion, and were going to take the case off in a very different direction. In the last few hours, we have this clerk edit, which removes a borderline-relevant reference to Abd's off-Wikipedia conduct. It's not clear to me why this was the only tangential remark removed from this Workshop. All of those instances point to problems of communication between the Committee and its Clerks, and between the Committee and the community it serves. I agree that it wouldn't be reasonable or helpful for all fourteen Arbs to comment on every workshop proposal, but would it kill you for one or two of you to pop in once every day or two? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly necessary. The Committee has gotten so wrapped up in their new projects, initiatives, etc. that they're shortchanging their core responsibility, which is to monitor and decide cases. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would encourage this. Besides proper handling and steering of discussions, more intervention or feedback (with reasoning) from the Arbitration Committee on proposals made by the community would be very welcome. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by FloNight

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1)The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Key that we stay focused on the reason we are all here. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Sweeeeet. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Absolutely. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Support We can only ever guess at motivations, but disruption is demonstrated at /Evidence. If an ideal editing environment prevailed, so-called Majority POV pushers would be rushing to defend Abd and vice versa. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval made a post last year which has stuck with me describing an ideal editing experience. It sure would be nice if we all could get along and get on with the article writing without dualing soapboxes on the talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - What's not to like? This is already the norm but it bears repeating. --GoRight (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - nicely said. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - exactly what WP should be. Mathsci (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Again, focused on the reason we need to have dispute resolution to deal with editor conflicts. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I struck the second part of the proposal title. Most of my proposals are from recent past cases, and I copied them over with some modifications, but we can still tweak them in order to make them more specific to this case. I see some soapboxing in this case so I think that it is relevant. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

oppose: DRY and not even terribly relevant William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good for mentioning NPOV and advocacy. COI doesn't apply much to this case, but it's good for the sake of completeness. I see the possibility of wikilawyering for the viwepoints thing, but it's correct nonetheless. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Two caveats. The vast majority of contributions to the project are by editors who don't know the policies, but have their own understandings of "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." All editors must comply with the key policies, yes, in the end, but along the way, various policies may be violated without an intention to do so, and we should take care to educate newcomers and not blame them for violating policies that they may not understand.
• In proportion to the weight of the sources can be quite difficult to interpret. We must determine this balance through consensus, there is no other way to do it neutrally; debate over this is at the core of much of the dispute over Cold fusion. If a fact is in reliable source, per the policy, it belongs somewhere in the project; due weight applies to each article or subsection of an article, and where inclusion of sourced fact in an article would unbalance the article in any major way, other more specialized articles are to be created. So, as a relevant example, if there is a section on "proposed explanations" in Cold fusion, the weight within that section reflects the weight of each "proposed explanation," i.e., theory, according to the treatment it has received in reliable sources. The theory should not be excluded based on a synthesis of what we think "most scientists" believe, nor should a theory proposed in 2007, say, and covered in secondary sources, be excluded or even included but framed as rejected based on a source in 2002 that says "all theories that have been proposed are ad-hoc explanations and involve new physics" or the like, and which could not possibly be in reference to a later proposal. We would present the 2002 statement, dated, and the new notable theory, dated, and, if there is doubt about its widespread acceptance -- which is true for all cold fusion theories -- the theory would be attributed.
• If coverage of these "proposed explanations" would unbalance the article making it appear that the only debate is over which theory to accept, based on the depth of coverage, then a new article on "Proposed theories explaining low energy nuclear reactions" would be created, properly framed according to the position of all this within the mainstream, and the most notable aspects covered in the original article per summary style.
• The applicability of conflict of interest guidelines here is peripheral. However, it does relate to the past history of Cold fusion. I'll note that most experts on a topic will have strong views, and experts may disagree, and be quite insistent about it. I believe that we should, when there is conflict, discourage experts from actually editing the article in a contentious way, but encourage them to comment and advise us on the Talk page. As it is, experts often end up banned. In other words, if someone claims to be an expert, we should probably treat them as COI. And this does relate to the present mess. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[I]n proportion to the weight of the source should be clarified - as written it could be interpreted as circular reasoning. Perhaps ...all editors must strive to ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source reliability of the source.? In principle, though, I agree - a reader should come away with the same impression from our articles (though of course some details may be omitted) as someone reading every source ever. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the whole well written. As others have commented, it could be tightened up a little with reference to fringe science/pathological science/pseudoscience. Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia topic bans

3) A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. When enacting an editing restriction that includes a ban on an editor, administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the editor is notified of the particulars of the ban and its duration. Editors that are page or topic banned from a section of Wikipedia are expected to cease contributing to that area. User account blocks may be used to enforce violation of page or topic bans. Any user can bring an administrator action up for review in the relevant noticeboard. if he sees a problem with it. The community can, among other things, lift the block/ban, endorse it or extend it in time and/or scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Comprehensive, but would be good to include it all in one principle it agreed on. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Added "page or" to the proposal. And striking, if he sees a problem with it. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I tweaked it again to make it read the same through out. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This ome doesn't have the problems that the previous similar proposals had. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. It should be mentioned that banned editors may also request review of a ban by ArbComm, which may accept or decline the review. Concur with removal of unnecessary phrase as suggested by 2over0 below. Further, it should be "bans," not "topic bans." The ban behind this flap was not a topic ban, it was a page ban, covering two pages only, and I was encouraged to participate, for example, in the mediation, which, as far as it has gone, has been fruitful. --Abd (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think that covers it, though I would delete the clause if he sees a problem with it as redundant and using gendered language. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, agree with 2over0. Per what I suggest in my Wikitrout 2 above, I would like to suggest that the first place to discuss is the enacting administrator on merits of why the restriction was applied, and I like see the addition of something along the lines of 'the editing restriction should be followed without exceptions, even while there is any reason to doubt validity of the edit restriction, until enacting administrator or the community lifts the edit restriction. This is strictly not to be determined by the editor the edit restriction is placed upon, and the editor should contact the enacting administrator or the community if he doubts the editing restriction is lifted.'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another clarification request. This describes page bans, are such page bans the same as those resulting from a {{uw-generic4}} issued to a user-talkpage, which links to Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing (and relevant to this case as citing from said behavioral guideline: "their edits are largely confined to talk-pages, such disruption may not directly harm an article, but it often prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article", and Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Signs_of_disruptive_editing which relate to several other Findings of Facts on this page)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)(expanded, there is more in that guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC))

• Supportper 2/0 and Dirk. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Clarification requested in regard to the sentence User account blocks may be used to enforce violation of topic bans. Enforcement of page bans should also be addressed by amending the sentence to read either "...violation of page or topic bans" or else "...violation of topic bans but not page bans." This is likely to be an important part of the decision so it would be best if it was worded unambiguously. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• The description of the nature of Wikipedia bans is historically inaccurate and unnecessarily formal. If the community won't let an editor have access to edit a page, to the extent that attempts to edit it will result in blocking, that editor is banned by the community. --TS 18:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Good faith and disruption

4) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Emphasis the point that good faith actions by all contributors can be sanctioned if it interferes with writing the encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeexactly. I remember a few well-intentioned editors causing lots of havock in total good faith. One of them had to be indef-blocked and his talk page blocked so he would stop. He was totally convinced that he was making good edits to a certain topic and that he didn't deserve being blocked (hint: he was totally clueless in the topic), and he kept breaking stuff even after having been told to stop and even after being topic banned from several pages. You see, wikipedia was in so much need of his knowledge that he couldn't leave the pages in what he thought a mistaken state. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. We should, however, strive to be fair. My opinion is that strict warnings, short blocks, and short administrative bans should be used much more liberally, and we should make it clear, in fact, that a block is not a personal judgment, not an assignment of blame, and a block record should not be used to impeach an editor with respect to any behavior not actually being repeated. A short block or ban is a rough equivalent of a police officer ordering people to be quiet during some legal proceeding. The officer warns or orders silence, and there is no argument over it, if the person continues, they are removed from the room, and, unless the behavior was truly illegal, not merely disruptive, there is typically no further process, not even a record made. Members of legislative bodies are not uncommonly removed from a session if they become disruptive, etc. --Abd (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Support, it is however not to the editor who is said to be disruptive to decide that the edit was not actually disruptive, that is up to the community. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Writing of the encyclopedia is the priority. Mathsci (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding apparent impropriety

5) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. We need to remind users that they need to avoid causing conflict when other approaches can are better or less controversial. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. Way cool. Thanks, FloNight. You have distilled or re-invented much of my rather disorganized case. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Shell: this is not a "regulation" that could be gamed, it is a desirable operating principle. As to content dispute, there are other kinds of disputes, and an administrator who is in other conflict with an editor, or who closely supports an editor in conflict with an editor, should recuse and seek help, if needed, as would any other editor. Administrators should not use their tools to support their friends, unless they conduct themselves in such a way as to resolve disputes instead of inflaming them. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Response to Stephan Schulz: Yes, it's vague, like some of our most important policies. I think it's necessary to give a specific example, per WP:TAGTEAM. There is a responsibility to be aware of the editing environment, our actions are not isolated. The exact place where normal editing stops and edit warring begins is not precisely defined, but if a series of editors each reverts once, the same edit, without discussion, we certainly have an appearance of tag-teaming. This is "apparent coordination," especially if repeated, even more so if repeated across a family of related articles, by the same editors. "Apparent" is needed precisely because there may be no direct coordination, but I'm sure the editors I've seen tag-teaming know that they are more effective because they outnumber the mostly isolated editors who arrive at the articles they watch. Repeated use of single reverts, once per day or less than that, repeating reverts made by apparently affiliated editors, should be considered "edit warring," and warnings issued, as well as blocks if warnings are ignored, even if an editor only made one revert. The harmful effects of edit warring are quite the same if an editor is repeatedly reverted by one editor, or by a group of editors. That this is a difficult problem to address does not mean that we should not at least begin the attempt. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Response to Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Specialists in a field of an article may hold similar POVs, or divergent POVs, but what is covered here is not POV, but behavior, and repeated reversion by a set of experts is edit warring and properly prohibited, the same as repeated reversion by a single editor, expert or not. "Expert" is a red herring. The "meat puppetry" claim based on similarity of POV has been properly rejected wherever I've seen it raised. I'm not sure what FloNight had in mind with that phrase. I can think of other examples, though; the problem is that "meat puppetry" is a confusing term to use for the real problem, which is involvement in conflict through affiliation.
• If an administrator and an editor are affiliated, and the editor tangles with another editor, and the administrator assists the friend with a block, we have a problem, and it is really the same problem, with the same negative consequences as to our image and the reality of our neutrality, as if the admin had blocked an editor with whom the admin was in direct conflict.
• Two experts explaining a problem to a new editor, patiently and civilly, will help the new editor and the project. If two experts revert, especially without adequate discussion, they may both be perceived as biased and unfair, "allied," but if one reverts as needed and the other explains, not joining in the reversion, we may end up with not only less conflict, but a better article. (Perhaps the new editor does not understand the field, and the reason the new editor does not understand is that the article is poorly written. Experts sometimes do a lousy job of explanation to non-experts. The process of patient explanation, exploring the misconceptions of the new editor, may well reveal a problem with the article and how to improve it. Instead, when a tag team forms, it defends the article it owns and inhibits this kind of exploration, and, as new editors arrive with the same misconceptions, disruption continues, never being resolved, because the article deficiencies have been frozen and the new editors perceived as a problem rather than as part of possible solutions.
• How to define "affiliated" is not simple. In this case, I defined an affiliated group of editors; I did not do this to be provocative, I did it because it is highly relevant to what is happening here, and what happened elsewhere, such as at the AN/I discussion that established a one-month community page ban for me. However, that it is difficult does not mean that it can't be done, and there is no suggestion here that we should throw the book at an editor because they happen to agree with a set of editors. We simply should be careful and aware of the problem of affiliation, or its inverse, collective aversion. --Abd (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"actions that might reasonably be construed as", can we put "reasonably" in italics to give it emphasis? This wording is good for mill-of-the-run articles, but for controversial articles..... As other points out, if someone makes a very bad edit repeatedly in a well-watched article then it's going to be reverted by a lot of people, sometimes the same people since they are the ones who helped write the article or have knowledge in the area. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• Oppose as written "an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors []" is uselessly vague and puts an unreasonable burden on editors who have a valid interest in participating in a discussion to consider wether their edits will be interpreted as "in apparent coordination". Might work without the "apparent" and a clearer description. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Too easily gamed and also misses a large point in this case: repeatedly insisting "involvement" does not make it so. Since WMC did not edit the article in question, it does not follow that there could have been even an appearance of furthering a content dispute; even Abd makes it clear that he feels WMC's involvement is a problem between the two of them. Shell ^babelfish 23:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You're effectively saying that two editors who are experts in the same academic specialization should never edit the same pages. They'll usually reach the same conclusions when dealing with common misconceptions on that topic, which will give a "reasonable but inaccurate" impression that they're meatpuppets in the minds of those who see their edits corrected. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• An editor that edits against consensus will find him or herself reverted by a number of editors acting "in apparent coordination". And if they try to make the same edits across a group of related articles, they run into the same group of editors. The very nature of Wikipedia brings like-minded editors together, and allows them to monitor the articles that interest them.

  Wikipedia facilitates collaboration. That collaboration starts to look a lot like collusion when your edits are thwarted by that group of editors. "Avoiding apparent impropriety" very rapidly becomes "avoiding collaborative editing". As phrased, this proposal is sharply at odds with the core mission of Wikipedia - above all else, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - in principle, this is what I have said in many forms for some time now. The only caveat I apply to the above is that it is for a third party to determine the involvement - a claim of involvement by the sanctioned party can be investigated, but the sanction applied must generally continue until the action is deemed to be wrong for the encyclopedia. If that caveat isn't there, then this is too easy to game and makes administration of the project difficult if not impossible. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The first example is fine; the second example creates some confusion with consensus, particularly when there is some controversy involved. It's hard to know how it would apply to pseudoscience (hydrino theory), fringe science (cold fusion), race issues (Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Race and intelligence) and expecially BLPs (cf Paul Krugman at the moment or Michael Atiyah last year). Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support (also per Fritzpoll). This should indeed be the case, and it should be strictly avoided. However, the sanctioned party can bring this to light, but they are not allowed to determine whether that is the case, and it should never be a reason to unilaterally not follow that sanction. The right to determine if involvement is the case, the right to determine if thát is enough cause to invalidate the sanction is to the community excluding both the sanctioning editor, the sanctioned editor, and others who are deemed to be (too) involved (though both still can explain their sides). Finding the sanctioning editor involved, but the sanction itself is endorsed does not excuse the sanctioned editor from following the sanction as applied by the sanctioning editor. (Hope I am clear, to many sanctions here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Good principle. [I]t is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. (Hewart) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the terms 'Meatpuppet' and 'Sockpuppet' need to be avoided in Arbcom rulings.198.161.174.222 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. The appearance of impropriety is too easily manufactured, and is the first line of attack in any situation where an administrator has taken necessary action that is supported by the community. --TS 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

6) Administrators are expected to lead by example and follow Wikipedia policies. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. If an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Shell Kinney, but the question here is whether, given WMC's lack of judgment in deciding to block Abd during this case, there is an argument to be made for examining WMC's previous actions for similar lack of judgment? I think that there is a good case for doing that. And considering whether WMC will continue in the same vein can be partly answered by looking at his opinion on whether him blocking Abd during the case (as opposed to another administrator looking into the incident) was justified or not. WMC's immediate reaction was that the block was good. I don't know if he has changed his position since (hopefully he will comment here). Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. We do not punish. Administrators may make mistakes, indeed, an administrator who never makes mistakes is probably a lousy administrator; the question is always whether the mistake is likely to be repeated, and serious if repeated. In RfAr/Abd and JzG 3, I proposed that a single mistake may properly lead to suspension of administrative privileges until such time as the administrator satisfies ArbComm that the administrator understands the nature of the error and regrets the underlying misconception(s), and that therefore the administrator is unlikely to repeat it. This can be done in private communication, and a suspension until ArbComm is satisfied there is no significant hazard is always adequate to protect the community from administrative abuse, and anything more than that is thus obviously punitive. Any admin who has worked hard on the project is likely to have made enemies, and these will pile in to an RfA; hence some of our best administrators might be unable to pass it again. (In order to satisfy general editorial concern, a statement from the rehabbed administrator should be prepared and released, approved by ArbComm as adequate and by the editor as fully accepted, so that the general community can also be reasonably satisfied that the error has been understood and regretted, but the discussion leading up to that should be private, possibly negotiated with a single arbitrator at first.) --Abd (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If administrators are allowed mistakes, I would posit that that this case does not rise to the level of "sustained or serious disruption". Its undertandable that ArbCom feels taken aback at the block during this case as it happened "on their watch" but that's a short peg to hang your hat on. Shell ^babelfish 23:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• True, and though I do see questioning of WMC's actions, they are smeared out over time. We all make mistakes. I agree with Shell Kinney here. Note, that there was ample time between Abd's notification that he considered the ban over (21:32, 8 August 2009), the actual edit (08:29, 9 August 2009) and the block (10:21, 9 August 2009). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Shell. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Good principle, well stated. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is prohibited

7) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. However, where reversion is used to encourage discussion, or as an efficient form of negotiation with partial reverts, occasional reverts may be appropriate. There needs to be some work on the definition of "revert." In my view, if an editor adds some content with a single source, and it is reverted by a second editor with "shitty source," and the first editor restores it with an additional source of arguably better or less controversial quality, the second editor has not reverted. This is even more true if there was intervening discussion. That the second edit did contain some text that had been removed should not make it a "revert," by itself. This is relevant to this case, because the claim that I violated 3RR on May 21 is founded on such an edit as the first edit in the warring sequence. (This raised only to establish relevance, not to make an argument about my behavior that day.)--Abd (talk)

the definition of revert, extended comment by Abd

WP:3RR: A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.) WP:Edit war. Reversion exists to undo in full an edit that has no merit whatsoever, not to refute an editor with whom one happens to disagree. Reversion throws away proposed changes by the other editor (even those made in good faith and for well intentioned reasons), rather than improving upon them or working with the editor to resolve any differences of opinion. Therefore reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason. The definition on the edit warring policy page would seem to differentiate between edits that "work with" another editor, and ones that simply reject it, a so-called "bald revert." An edit that restores previously removed material, but with additional sourcing, or with rewording to attempt to satisfy an objection from a removing editor, is quite different from a simple removal or a simple reassertion. Occasionally, as well, a bald revert may have an edit summary that is clearly in error, and we may have an example in this case. Consider a series of edit summaries like this: A: Add 2 new sections. B: revert, shitty source. A and B and others discuss in Talk, no consensus. A:Add 2 sections. 1 reworded, the other reworded with additional sources. B:revert both sections, discuss in Talk. A: copies both sections to Talk. One section, no comment. (It's a very simple section, making a statement that isn't actually controversial.) Other section, compromise version with editor C, generally aligned with B. B does not participate in this discussion. A: add the 2 sections, the first one with no change, the second one with the compromise text and more source. B rv both sections, please discuss in Talk before making controversial changes. A: rv B, was discussed in Talk, please see discussion. My view is that in this series, B has reverted three times, bald reverts. A has reverted once, and even that reversion was in response to an edit comment that appears to reflect, if we AGF, an unawareness of the fact that it was discussed in Talk. In other words, A is not intentionally edit warring, but is following a negotiation process at each point. By the strict application of the 3RR definition, however, "in whole or in part," A has reverted three times. By the intention of the Edit war policy, A has reverted once or no time at all. There is another disturbing problem, I don't know how real a problem this is. The same series of edits may violate 3RR or not violate 3RR, depending on work by other editors to the same article, with the violating editor completely unaware of those other edits that create a technical violation. I.e., suppose an editor adds a series of subsections, perhaps with inadequate sourcing. It's reverted out in toto. The editor then restores each subsection, with better sourcing. If these edits are done one at a time -- which is better, one edit per subsection, it makes review and acceptance easier -- the editor has a series of, say, four edits. By the strict definition, if there are no intervening edits, this would be one revert. By the definition that I prefer, these edits are negotiating edits, answering an objection raised, they aren't reverts at all. No problem? Add a third editor who starts working on another section of the article. This editor, unfortunately, is one of those who makes a big pile of edits. He's working on one section, not the section the first editor is working on, and he saves it 20 times. His edits are interspersed between those of the first editor. The first editor has now violated 4RR and is blocked. I'd say we need some better definitions, because if any policy should be clear, it would be the bright line of 3RR. It may be argued that we should preserve a strict definition, and if an editor like I described above is blocked, a requested review would consider extenuating circumstances. What I saw, personally, when I asserted an extenuating circumstance when I was almost blocked over a series of edits that included, as I recall, several of these "marginal" reverts, and I suggested that I had not actually violated 3RR, it was called "wikilawyering." (The interspersal problem I described was not present in this case, but the use of edits for rapid negotiation was very much so, I think that bald reverts on that day were one or two, though I should check. --Abd (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Let's consider a slightly less hypothetical example. Say that an editor had in the past reverted a specific page to add a paragraph beginning, "A number of different possible fusion pathways..."[106]. In his edit summary on May 11, this editor indicated that he considered this edit a revert. Later, he proceeds to revert to (among other things) again add that identical paragraph four times in a four hour period.[107][108][109][110]. The entirety of this paragraph including sourcing was the same in these four reversions. Discussion of what intervening edits occurred, whether the editor changed content as a whole or as smaller parts, negotiation or modification made of other sections or other edits- all of this is irrelevant. A specific passage was reverted four times in four hours. The evidence of a 3RR violation in this case is unambiguous.

Abd's implication that his first edit on May 21 was to "Add 2 new sections" is clearly incorrect in light of his May 11 revert already containing what is substantially the second 'new' section.--Noren (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• First of all, the example given was hypothetical, not a real example, only loosely based on the real history. In the real history, there were three sections, not two, for example. The sequence was different, etc. May 10, beginning serious editing of the article, as distinct from talking about it, I made a series of changes to the article, some sections were rewritten, and three new sections were added on "proposed explanations." Briefly, Storms' general comment on CF theories, hydrino theory, and Be-8 theory. Storms' comment should be uncontroversial, nobody has challenged the actual text either in substance or based on applicable contrary source, and, like it or not, Storms does meet WP:RS without any doubt at all, and what is stated in Storms on this is uncontradicted by any recent reliable source, nor by any older source of similar quality or better.

evidence by Abd on the edit sequence, incomplete, just the first day so far

--Abd (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) 0:24, 10 May 2009 (Hipocrite) (These are fringe sources that cannot be used for scientific fact. Discuss your bold edits on the talk page and seek consensus, restore reliable source.) Notice that the edit did not assert "scientific fact," rather it asserted notable proposals. "Sources" are not "fringe" unless published by a fringe publisher. So this was pretty shaky, removing sourced material with, obviously, no serious consideration of it. 15:14, 11 May 2009 Kevin Baas (undo arbitrary removal of sourced material by Hipocrite) 15:27, 11 May 2009 Hipocrite (Remove violation of Undue Weight by Kevin Baas.) This is a typical tactic; same action, new reason. The proper response to "undue weight" would be to balance with material from other reliable source, assuming it exists. It doesn't in this case, for most of this. There is balancing source on hydrino theory, which comes in later. 15:32, 11 May 2009 Kevin Baas (undo violation by hipocrite again, and now add to that incivility and misleading edit summaries.) 15:33, 11 May 2009 Hipocrite (Remove violation of Undue Weight by Kevin Baas. See talk,) 20:43, 11 May 2009 Abd (revert per Talk. While it's possible this version is out of balance, current opinion seems to be that this is better than the version being reverted back. It addressed the undue weight concerned and is verifiable.) Yes, this is a revert. One. At this point there is one editor reverting the material out, three times. Given that the edit summaries made no sense, and this was being actively discussed, and there was support for my position, this is the kind of situation where I will sometimes make a single revert. Hipocrite started editing Cold fusion May 1. However, 21:05, 11 May 2009 Verbal (Undid revision 289323111 by Abd (talk) per talk) There are two editors now supporting the removal. This is going to take more than a single revert to deal with. I stop. So does Keven Baas. Discussion continues in Talk. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, so rather than seeing a problem with his own edit-warring, Abd believes that the problem lies in Wikipedia's definition of a "revert". As a larger matter, you're flogging WMC (and, previously, JzG) for being unwilling to admit any fault; yet you yourself can't even manage to own up to committing an obvious, cut-and-dried, unarguable violation of 3RR when faced with the diffs. I know you're an intelligent person; you must have the self-awareness to see the inconsistency here. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is a topic page ban applied to Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and several associated disputes, in relation to editorial disputes on the cold fusion article.

The cold fusion article was also the locus of dispute in the cold fusion arbitration in December 2008.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops,reworded. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. --Abd (talk)

Support --Enric Naval (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There was no topic ban. There was only a page ban from Cold fusion and its talk page, as you note in the next finding. This is the second time I've had to correct an arbitrator on this point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion page ban

2) WMC enacted a page ban of Abd and Hipocrite from Cold Fusion and its talkpage. The notification for this was placed on Talk:Cold fusion and the editors were not initially notified on their talkpages. When Abd responded to the ban in situ, objecting, but agreeing to respect the ban pending review, WMC removed that response and warned him on his Talk page. When Abd informed WMC that he was withdrawing the agreement to respect the ban, but without any actual violating edit, the ban was reviewed at AN/I at the request of Enric Naval. When many editors rapidly appeared, supporting the ban, Abd withdrew opposition and requested a speedy close by a neutral admin, and the the ban discussion was closed by Heimstern. explaining his reasons. The ban discussion was closed by Heimstern and, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Heimstern&oldid=305950484#Request_Clarification_-_Abd_ban in response to queries, clarified it as a one-month ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Borrowed from Enric Naval. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. -FloNight♥♥♥

Comment by parties:

Much closer that before, but still inaccurate in an important respect: as I and others have pointed out you have misinterprested Heimsterns close. Abd very specifically asked H to confirm that he had closed it as a one month ban Heimstern, the ban was originally declared on June 6, 2009. From your comments above, I'd assume, default, that I'm free to resume editing the article at this point, but I'd like confirmation of that from you before proceeding. For full disclosure, I should note that William M. Connolley claims that the ban was indef and that it is up to him when it ends and H very carefully avoided saying so, indeed he entirely washed his hands of it: I am releasing all responsibility for this ban at this point, as I never intended to take on any responsibility for it at all. I believed myself to be making a purely procedural close of a discussion; in that belief it appears I was mistaken. It appears ArbCom will likely handle this, so I imagine it shouldn't be a problem for me not to get further involved in this. I think it is regrettable that H will not comment on these arbcomm pages William M. Connolley (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Better; no longer inaccurate, but incomplete ...and the the ban discussion was closed by Heimstern. is obviously missing "in what way was it closed"? If you don't know how it was closed, say so. Also, you're omitting Abd saying he doesn't accept my ban and me telling him that is the nature of bans William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support with the text about a one-month close restored. WMC has himself misrepresented Heimstern's action. I asked for a neutral administrator to speedy close that discussion with a conclusion. The discussion itself was a snow consisting mostly of editors from the faction I've identified, these were editors who had already concluded that I should be banned, the overlap with such calls in RfC/JzG 3 is striking, and such a snow frequently pulls along some sympathy; to actually examine the situation and determine responsibility takes time, and editors who will really investigate, who are initially neutral and cautious, therefore, don't jump in at first. Had I left the discussion open, it would have shifted, but there are so many active editors in this faction, and so focused on this issue are they, that I saw no way that a true consensus could be found there; the result would be either a ban or no consensus, and in both cases, we'd be coming to ArbComm, unless the ban were short. This was not an ordinary "dispute" amenable to standard low-level DR. What RfC/JzG 3 showed was that such an apparent "consensus" could form, yet be utterly improper; the purpose of the RfC was to examine JzG's behavior, and the complaint in that RfC was sound and expressed with focus and clarity; I was not disruptive to raise it, and it is chilling to allow retaliation against editors for raising valid complaints. --Abd (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

evidence on the close and the setting of the term as one month

From my request to close: (If the close is a neutral administrator, there would be someone to administer the ban, to decide on enforcement, etc., someone with whom I can negotiate. Given the !votes above, it would be preposterous of me to imagine that an uninvolved administrator had closed with bias. I ask that the close be done by an admin who would be willing to consider evidence that was not presented here, for reasons I've explained. Simply "endorsing" the ban leaves administration in the hands of WMC, a task which he should not have taken on because of recusal policy. That is, the close should confirm the ban, not the banning administrator. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) The bold emphasis was in the original. I assume that Heimstern read this, and his response indicates that he did. As it happened, I never did ask him to "consider evidence," and it was not necessary, because his decisions were quite satisfactory to me. Had he closed, for example, with an indefinite ban or with leaving the matter in the hands of WMC to decide ban length, I'd have discussed it with him. From Heimstern's closing remarks, as archived: ... I think I qualify as a neutral admin and intend to grant Abd's request that this discussion be closed. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Abd has indicated that he will abide by the page ban, not per the original banning administrator, but per the discussion/straw poll/whatever it was here. Nothing left to do here. Appealing via ArbCom remains an option if people feel that the need exists. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC) On his Talk page, Heimstern was requested to be explicit about the ban term: ... could you clarify the length of the page ban being endorsed by the community? A one month ban, or an indefinite ban with the possibility of lifting after one month depending on behaviour? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[111] Heimstern replied: I think it's best to just leave it where it started, i.e., at one month. In the absence of a statement to the contrary, I assume those in the discussion didn't mean to make any changes to the originally intended page ban. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[112] Enric Naval, who had filed the AN/I report, and I, both accepted this response.[113] It was not challenged at the time. Then, when the month had lapsed, I went back to Heimstern talk, and, as a courtesy, asked him about expiration, see the end of the section in permanent link; WMC has above reported only that question and his response, not the original decision. It can be argued that Heimstern erred, but to interpret that "originally intended page ban" meant that Heimstern was accepting an indef ban is to ignore the context: his response to a request for a neutral decision, because of WMC's involvement in a dispute with me, and, as well, to ignore his explicit clarification of "one month." I relied on his decision. Had he decided differently, I would have responded differently. Instead, I did not take the ban to ArbComm, because a one-month ban was acceptable; rather, it was only because of WMC's refusal to accept the AN/I close, his continued insistence that he had the right to block me, and his disregard for my claims that he was involved in a dispute with me, that this case was filed. Heimstern did not reply to my checking with him about the end of the ban because he had taken a wikibreak in protest over the short-block of an administrator by Jimbo, the comment that I assumed the ban was over was made on July 7. There was no reply to it, by anyone, until July 19, by which time this case was already open. Is there any wonder that I assumed that the ban was no longer in effect? --Abd (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

• True, and it may be one of the problems here. Abd always finds an 'acting administrator' (and can then try to take out the administrator on procedural issues, which often happens, or can use that in the future as from that point on that administrator is involved). The community discussion here endorsed a ban by WMC, so the community endorsed the ban. In my opinion, Abd's conclusion that Heimstern was now the 'acting administrator' is strongly flawed, it is the community (he has done this before, e.g. with a me in a de-blacklisting request (declined by me, so I was the one that now was responsible for the blacklisting) on meta (and, in Abd's view, technically still am!) in relation to the previous ArbComm Abd/JzG). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• My view is that a closer is responsible for all decisions made, until the closer has been replaced by a new one, or the matter has otherwise passed on. If an admin closes an AfD, and an editor considers that close defective, the first place to go is not WP:DRV but directly to the admin with a request for reconsideration. Only if the result of this is unsatisfactory is the more disruptive DRV process appropriate. So, yes, I always find an "acting administrator" -- or other decider -- for the community does not actually have any mechanism for making decisions; rather, members of the community, in a sample which is often biased, advise, and an individual neutral administrator decides, based on evidence and arguments, not on !votes. Snow closes are legitimate without consideration of evidence, but are dangerous if the administrator then refuses to consider evidence on request, and claims instead that "the community decided, I can't ch::ange it." In particular, a ban decision, if contested, requires a consideration of whether or not the consensus is one of "uninvolved editors," per WP:BAN, and that can be a complex judgment. I suggest close attention to the claim of Beetstra here, for, if accepted, it undermines our whole system. --Abd (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Beetstra makes a serious charge here, that I find an acting admin and then "can try to take out the administrator on procedural issues, which often happens." I can't think of an example that applies here. Beetstra is responsible for his decisions, and I asked that he reconsider one. He did not reverse it, and I did not try to "take him out." At all. Instead, we cooperated and I've been very satisfied with his subsequent decisions, which involved his acceptance of details, rather than his reversal of an overall decision, which might have avoided a lot of Talk! --Abd (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Now, if that is not a good assumption of bad faith, then I don't know it anymore: ".. members of the community, in a sample which is often biased, advise, ..." (yes, the old trick, they are all member of the same cabal, and they are all involved, so all their !votes actually don't count).

And no, if a neutral administrator is making the decision on his weighing of the consensus reached by the subset of the community, then it is the community that has decided. And what again is the locus of the dispute? Why are you in a dispute with WMC again? Sorry Abd, but declaring that you are in a dispute with an admin because of a decision the admin made is not invalidating the decision, at least, that is not up to you to decide.

And thát is the problem, Abd, if editors who have been acted upon by an administrator are declaring all the time that there is a dispute with the admin, then the power of the administrative tools fall away completely. Again, it is not up to you to decide that the restriction that is put onto you is not valid as you are from that moment in a dispute with that editor.

Another statement that you quote is from Heimstern, he explicitly endorses "Abd has indicated that he will abide by the page ban, not per the original banning administrator, but per the discussion/straw poll/whatever it was here.", note that that does not say anything about the ban by WMC, it certainly does not invalidate it, it only says that you will abide by the community ban, and that you will not abide by the ban WMC put. Tricky, is it not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• My comment about "often biased" was absolutely general. People who are interested enough to make a comment in a discussion tend to be those with existing opinions, it takes time to gather neutral and informed comment. Participation bias is absolutely to be expected as normal in all Wikipedia discussions. The "cabal" claim is relevant to my specific situation at the AN/I ban discussion, but not to the general principle. "Bad faith?" Eh? --Abd (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• (added after ec) Yes. Maybe I was uninvolved there (I sayd 'try', not 'will'). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Dirk and WMC. Heimstern was unwittingly in the wrong place at the wrong time when he archived the thread. Abd has sought to give undue administrative significance to the role of Heimstern as thread archiver. Mathsci (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Re-adding comment accidentally deleted in edit conflict; diff of original [114] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is even more blatant. The process of administrative close, with decisions being made on arguments and evidence -- evidence was almost totally lacking in the AN/I discussion, one of the signs of prejudgment -- has been converted into mere clerking, the closing admin is merely a "thread archiver." Wikipedia manages to function without a bureaucracy through the system of executive decisions being made by neutral administrators, either independently or as advised through a discussion, but always responsibly. Without that system, we would have mob rule, and the extent to which Wikipedia is dysfunctional is largely the extent to which mob rule is a reality. --Abd (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yet thread archiver he was. What responsibility he chose to take afterwards was his own decision. Mathsci (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the summary without the last sentence is most accurate. I said it was a one-month ban only because I didn't know there was/would be any real controversy on the matter. (Shows how much I know.) I want to reiterate something I said on my talk not too long ago: When I closed that discussion, I thought it was a purely procedural matter, as mundane as delisting the RfA of a withdrawn candidate. That was not the case, and as such my close should not get a lot of weight, at least in my opinion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd in violation of prior remedy

1) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, Abd was advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution. He has failed to follow that advice.

FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I fail often. Because what ArbComm advised is difficult to implement. I do listen to and incorporate feedback, wherever I can, and I clearly documented this case in filing it. The basic case was all there in the filing. This case become extremely difficult, not at the outset, but because of the pile-in, as I believe can be seen. If ArbComm had acted to partition the case, to allow only the most urgent issue (a claim of admin recusal failure) to be considered, with either a referral back to the community for RfC on my behavior, or the opening of a separate case on that, it would have remained very simple. I like the mentorship proposal because I can always use assistance, and a mentor would be expected to sympathetically try to understand what is legitimate about what I'm trying to do, and help me to do it in the least disruptive way. As well, of course, the mentor would discourage what is not legitimate. --Abd (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you added tangential parties to this case haphazardly, and then fired off a long list of "cabalists" as the centerpiece of your evidence. Do you see the link between these behaviors and what you subsequently describe as a "pile-in"? MastCell ^Talk 04:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. Abd has indeed modified his behaviour in reponse to feedback, as I describe here in the section "#Abd ignores warnings" on this page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (Signature added 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC))

Support Fairly straightforward based on the majority of evidence. Shell ^babelfish 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the core issue in this mess. We wouldn't be dealing with bans, blocks, and all the other problems here if he hadn't ignored Arbcom's previous advice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support as in my evidence. The first unsigned comment here of Raul654 seems to be ironic. Mathsci (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  The edit you refer to was made by Coppertwig. I fully support this FOF. Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oops, I clicked on the wrong link. That explains things :) 15:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is the finding most likely to pass, though I see merit in the others proposed here about Adb's conduct. It is of primary importance that the Committee recognise that the problem is an editor who will not or cannot work with Wikipedia. --TS 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd tendentious editing

x) Abd (talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited the cold fusion article. 1; 2; 3; 4; 5

xx)Abd has edit warred. Abd, Abd,July 2009.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Oppose. Link 1: I do not "ignore" sources that say that cold fusion is pathological science; however, in a science article, we rely primarily, for the core, on peer-reviewed secondary sources, and there are none which say this. However, there is RS expressing that opinion and judgment, mostly older sources. These belong in the article, but framed as what they are: opinions, not scientific fact. The rejection of cold fusion by the general scientific community is a major historical phenomenon, and it deserves appropriate coverage, based on what is in reliable source. Briefly, on the other "tendentious editing" remarks, discussion in Talk may be a problem, but it is the opposite of "tendentious editing" of the article. I would ask that, if there is to be a finding on this, the actual offenses be specified, rather than simply referring to an evidence section presented and framed by a highly biased party to this case, who just edit warred on the Talk page himself.[115][116] "Willfully ignored" is not a neutral comment! --Abd (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• As to edit warring, three links are presented. The first added parties to the case, I understood that I could do that. The second added notification diffs. I had notified Mathsci, and when I came back to add the notification diff, his name was mysteriously missing. Because we are not allowed to edit the sections of others, it did not even occur to me that he might have removed it. So, thinking I must have accidentally deleted it, I put it back. Technically, then, this was a revert, but unintentional. The third added another party, and was not a revert. There is an example of edit warring in the history of this case, but it was not cited here. In my two years of high activity, I have edit warred, AFAIK, once. May 21. It actually had a good result, consensus on the article advanced, but that does not at all mean that I would do it again. I try things, and next time I do better. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Obvious. It should read "has edit warred during the case". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Obvious to anyone who spends 5 minutes reading the evidence and workshop pages, but it needs to be stated explicitly as an FOF or Abd will try to claim vindication. Raul654 (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support User:GoRight is of the opinion that "It's a form of abuse when you add numerous wordy paragraphs when a few words would suffice."[117] This is a sound perspective, and we should recognize Abd's disruption in this regard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, but of course I would likewise argue that Abd uses only as many words as are necessary to convey his exact meaning. Thus fewer words would NOT suffice even in his case. --GoRight (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think a clearly worded and unambiguous finding like this is necessary, given the propensity to interpret anything more subtle as an outright vindication. MastCell ^Talk 03:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC edit warring

x) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in edit-warring, including multiple times on Arbitration pages. 1.July 2009, 2. [118], [119]. (More to come)

Comment by Arbitrators:

FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment: A disruptive edit by WMC may have contributed indirectly to an established editor leaving the project. WMC deleted from Hipocrite's talk page a notice about this RfAR by Abd. Rootology restored it, was criticized for using rollback for that reversion, and a little over 2 hours later wrote "that does it" and announced retirement. Other things happened during the intervening 2 hours which may have more directly contributed to the decision to retire, but the conflict over WMC's edit may have been a factor, and in any case WMC's removal of the notice was "editing while involved": he could have asked a clerk to decide whether to do it.
WMC also removed a name from the list of parties on the case page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Confession I may have indirectly caused the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. In 1993, I got up from my chair, creating a gravity wave that interacted with the Burma plate. 11 years later, the tsunami struck. Other things happened during the intervening 11 years, and a few million years before that, which may have more directly contributed to the event, but my getting up may have been a factor. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Remark to Coppertwig, "may have contributed indirectly" (and the word may is used another 2 times) ... Can you possible be any vaguer, Coppertwig, while still maintaining negativity? Do you actually have any proof for this? Sigh! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC blocking as involved admin

x) Multiple times William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has blocked editors when he was an "involved administrator". Giovanni33 [120], [121]. Abd. [122] Giano, (a find of fact in Geogre-William M. Connolley case).

Comment by Arbitrators:

FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Add more evidence from another ArbCom case. There is the expectation that an admin will learn from the feedback that they get in Community discussions and from arbs during a case. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Having to go back more than a year seems just a touch desperate. Can you really not find anything more recent? Also note that the block of G33 was upheld as good (though not my doing it). Sam Korn did the sane and obvious thing, which I've done myself before; perhaps you could hold that up as a model William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also... G33 is a a multiply banned [123] ex-editor currently community banned for a year. I see you've silently added added Giano, which is also a bit desperate, since that was an entirely different matter: you've effectively misrepresented the FoF in the previous case. You must be able to do better than this William M. Connolley (talk) 08:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, can't resist adding: is this some kind of version of Godwins law: all arbcomm cases end up mentioning Giano? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support. WMC, like any active administrator, may accumulate errors. However, ArbComm has desysopped based on a single error, under one very clear condition: the administrator did not acknowledge the error, did not show understanding that recusal policy would have required abstaining from the use of tools, thus showing that the admin did not understand the policy, thus showing that there was a danger of repetition. WMC has yet to acknowledge one error on the matter of recusal; in the most blatant of such failures, his block of me during this case, he still has not acknowledged it. This case would not have been filed based on water under the bridge, it was filed because of total intransigence on this issue. The finding here is clear, and could have been established based on prior events, but became irrefutable during this case. --Abd (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• No This is saying that WMC was involved towards Abd, this broad definition of involvement is going tie the hands of many admins that are willing to put peace at conflictive pages when they deal with editors who are repeatedly disruptive. Also, as pointed out, Giano's block was good and it was enforcing a decision from Arbcom, although he shouldn't have done it himself. I don't how you can go and make a desysop remedy from this FoF, see at my analysis of evidence for how other blocks by WMC were upheld by the community, and how WMC has 750 entries in his blocking in the last year. This is heading for a punitive measure against a hard-working admin for doing the right thing (enforcing the rules with disruptive editors) and making some errors along the way, not the message that you want to transmit to conflictive editors and to uninvolved admins. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. See one example in my evidence; also Ikip's evidence and this list posted by Ikip of comments by admins also contain allegations of many such. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence they were "mistakes": I've seen no apologies from WMC nor acknowledgement of error, even after feedback has been provided. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This would seem to fall under the category of occasional mistakes. Two blocks in over a year is hardly multiple nor does it show a pattern that would require sanction. Shell ^babelfish 23:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Two blocks is indeed not much, though the block during this case is quite a significant mistake (as is editing a page where there is an editing restriction during the same!). Note, again, there was ample time between Abd's notification that he considered the ban over (21:32, 8 August 2009), the actual edit (08:29, 9 August 2009) and the block (10:21, 9 August 2009) for others following the case to intervene as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Shell and Dirk. Mathsci (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to say what "involved" means. The definition shifts from one case to the next. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Support "occasional mistake"? Once, maybe, twice, possibly, but over 40 times? I first got involved with Connolley when he said, I quote "Time to start a major flamewar"[124] and then, ignoring other editors identical edits, booted me on an article he was actively edit warring on.
  In the second case in which I was involved with Connolley in, he booted two editors, then he immediately unblocked one of editors in the edit war This caused more admin outrages, adding an 8th admin to the list of admin's who have chastized his administrative abuses. Ikip (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• May be reasonable --it depends on how accurate in this case is the famous phrase, "Power corrupts." V (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• The role of the arbcomm is to interpret policy, not to make it. The true measure of what the community considers an "involved" admin lies in the admin actions that fail to arouse controversy, not in the actions that generate drama on ANI. The difference between support and censure on ANI is often just a function of how well you motivate your political allies (or how well your adversaries moilise).

  Arbs don't make policy - or shouldn't, at any rate. It's not about how the arbs interpret policy, it's about how the community interprets policy. And the answer to that lies in the range of admin actions that pass without comment. You can't simply pick a couple blocks and say "this violates my interpretation of the blocking policy". You need to say "that stands outside the norm of the way we do things", not "this doesn't mesh with my reading of policy". Guettarda (talk) 05:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This finding falsely implies that Connolley was involved. --TS 03:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC's controversial action as admin

x)While acting as an admin WMC has made comments and performed actions that needlessly escalated the dispute.

a)On June 1, 2009, CF is fully protected. On June 5, 2009 WMC edits through the protection and reverts CF to a prior version with the summary "lets wind everyone up"

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think this indicates that WMC needs to take some time away from admin in these difficult areas of WP. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I'm not looking at anything based on "cabalism" but rather I'm looking at issues related to decorum and good practices for dispute resolution. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is not a problem, really, Short Brigade Harvester Boris. Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh. But after reading loads of comments on this case, I'm weary of ideas being framed as "us" against "them". FloNight♥♥♥ 02:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

BozMo, I'm very aware of the work that him and some other admins do in these controversial areas. I'm surrounded by these situations day in and day out. There is a group of admins and also functionaries that do checkuser and oversight for these articles who do much needed work in these areas. But we can not overlook problems when they come up. A large part of the problem is the way that WMC handled it over weeks. Any one isolated part of the situation would barely warrant mentioning. The problems over the past weeks came to head with the block of Abd during the case. So, when all of it is put together there is enough for me to see something that needs to be addressed now. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

First, correct the finding by adding that the edit was suggested here diff. so it's clear that it wasn't WMC's own idea.

Second, what is exactly the problem with that revert? The edit was made responding to a reasonable suggestion in the talk page, an action that is covered by WP:PROTECT#Full_protection, at most WMC should have waited for more consensus, he must have thought that the revert would uncontroversial because he was going back to a pre-edit war version which is well within stablished practice. Another important point: the revert didn't benefit any of the sides (since it actually reverted some of my own edits, and some edits of other editor that is also supposedly part of that supposed cabal). GoRight didn't expect WMC to implement his suggestion so quickly. At the end of the day the only one that opposed the revert was Abd, who complained about how the revert complicated his poll or something, and the whole argument looks a bit like meta:The_Wrong_Version.

Finally, as I said in other comments, that edit summary has been wikilawyered to hell and back, trying to extract hidden bad faith meanings from it. That is stupid, and the ones misbehaving are the ones doing the wikilawyering. What are we supposed to do, start couching all our words in careful wordings so we don't offend those who are searching for things to pick at? The solution is telling the wikilawyers to drop it and warn them for bad faith accusations. The ambient of collaborative editing is pretty much killed if we can't even make one playful edit summary for fear that wikilawyers will use it to accuse us of stuff. They need to be told that their behaviour is disrupting, otherwise they'll just keep doing it, thinking that it's allowed. Making so much of one edit summary is falling into the wikilawyering strategy and missing the point that the edit was correct and that the edit summary could have simply meant that, well, that maybe he just wanted to wind everyone up?? Like, in a good way??? While I accept that controversial areas to have to behave better, it doesn't mean that you have to be nailed to the boards for every perceived mistake. What kind of collaborative editing is that promoting? And how many uninvolved admins do you expect to wander vonluntarily into controversial articles if they know that every word is going to be dissected like that? (ah, I ranted again, damn it) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This was the version that pre-dated the edit wars in which Abd and others were engaged. You're aware that this reversion was made upon the recommendation of one of Abd's most ardent supporters (GoRight), correct?[125] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

@ FloNight: Cabalism? I don't understand. That's certainly not what I had in mind. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

@ FloNight again: Thanks. I was pointing out that this wasn't something WMC did to support his own content position (and I'm not sure of his view on cold fusion anyway; I suspect that like me he may not have one). Sorry for not being clearer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

As discussed elsewhere here and in the evidence, Abd objected strenuously to the version that was protected, I believe that there was no established consensus as to what version to revert to (noting that Abd has argued to the contrary), and reverting to a pre-edit war state is recommended by policy specifically to address situations such as this, where an edit warrior (Hipocrite in this case) is being rewarded by the currently protected version. WMC's action to revert the page while it was protected was fully in line with established policy. That said, the "let's wind everyone up" was a poor edit summary, although I read it as the time as equivalent to "wind everything back" - perhaps too much AGF on my part, but it made sense at the time. - Bilby (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

@ FloNight: I think in all honesty you underestimate the extent of work done by WMC in the "difficult areas" of WP. It is because he does such a high proportion of what the rest of us chicken out of that he turns up in disputes, not because his calls are below average for an admin. He calls it right a much higher proportion than the rest of us, but we back away from the hard calls. It is like in healthcare stats: the really skilled surgeons often end up with a higher complication rate because they are the ones referred or prepared to take on very tough cases.--BozMo talk 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I could not have said it better. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

@FloNight: Personally I would wish to humbly remind you of the principle of use of tools and roles within Wikipedia. Blocking, protecting etc are not used as punishments or privileges but in the best interest of the content/project. Abuse of tools in a content dispute for this reason is explicitly prohibited and very bad. Use of tools in a way which does not influence content directly is a much lighter issue. What you are proposing (keeping WMC away from policing the wild west for a bit) would in my view be to the immediate detriment of the content: this action would be disproportionate to offenses which are of a fundamentally milder nature and would be like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Of course, every troll claims "bad taste" and tries to convince us it matters more than content but WP:IAR is part of an important tradition that the project matters most. By all means find some ritual humbling which matches the crime, but don't stop what he is needed for. On top of which next time there was some massive complex nasty edit dispute on a highly technical subject with accusations all round and admins involved you'd have to be the one I called with the time to go through it all carefully. --BozMo talk 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Flo: "The problems over the past weeks came to head with the block of Abd during the case." - Abd admittedly provoked this block intentionally. He got what he asked for and fully expected. How is that block a substantial disruption of Wikipedia that requires ArbCom intervention? What happened to WP:IAR and the spirit of the rules? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Also Re FloNight. First, you are right, WMC should not have blocked himself. But:

There are, if I calculated correctly, about 13 hours between Abd's announcement that he considered the ban over, and the block, and about 2 between the 'violating' edit and the block. I agree, WMC should not have blocked, but others had ample time to do something about that (and I am looking at myself here, I did read the comment by Abd (the one on his talkpage), I found it at that time not necessary to comment on that (I did not expect that Abd would actually act on it), but no one else acted, not in 2 hours after the edit, let alone in the 11 hours before it). And I really, really do believe that Abd would have made more edits, that block did prevent further violation). It is a pity that it was a party in this case that had to come to that conclusion. A slap on the mouse-hand is here certainly in place, but ... well, I have given my thoughts in my proposals. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets remember that this is one of numerous times Connolley has abusively protected an article -- the most prominent case is:

"In the Peiser case, a Wikipedian stopped a prolonged war by freezing a continually changing page (Naomi Oreskes), to prevent more alterations until the dispute was settled. As occurs on such occasions, readers are alerted that Wikipedians are warring over the page, and that Wikipedia was not endorsing the version of the page that had been frozen. To Connolley's chagrin, however, the version that was frozen cast doubt on claims of a consensus on climate change. Although this was done within Wikipedia rules, Connolley intervened to revert the page and ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see." -- Solomon, Lawrence (May 03, 2008). "The Opinionator: Solomon". Financial Post. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Of all of Connolley's page protections, he has protected Global Warming the most, Fifteen times.[126] Global Warming is also the main space page that Connolley has edit the most, 1,021 times. MoreIkip (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Solomon is well-known as an "opinionator" with little regard for facts. Your claim that WMC has protected global warming 15 times is plain and simply wrong. Either you don't know how to read logs, or you have not bothered. Many of the actions in the protection log are unprotections, reductions to semi, or move protections. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Evidence of WMC's involvement in relation to admin actions taken with respect to Abd and cold fusion is listed here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

At this point, this is all the evidence anyone needs,

1. #Background by arbcom User:Stephen Bain,
2. #WMC_blocking_as_involved_admin by arbcom User:FloNight, and
3. arbcom User:Rlevse's comment.[127]

If anyone cares to argue involvment they can take it up with these three arbcom members. Ikip (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• This finding is blatantly false. William M. Connolley's actions visibly improved the editing and discussion atmosphere of the article by removing the most disruptive elements. This is exactly why we have administrators (and we we pay them so highly!) --TS 18:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Further to my comments above - Abd specifically requested the protecting admin to revert in order to remove the version that was protected:

"An alternative, if you wish to leave protection in place, would be to revert the article to the time of Hipocrite's request, thus removing the changes to the introduction which no non-COI editor other than Hipocrite has accepted, and countering his gaming of protection process, or to the version before his edits that immediately preceded protection, or to a version before the edit warring began, any one of these would be better than the present state, where the introduction is highly biased, whereas the lead should reflect the highest possible consensus." [128]

Specifically, he proposed as an option that it be reverted to a pre-edit war state (amongst other options), which is what WMC later did, as per policy. With Hipocrite supporting the revert, a neutral party proposing the version to revert to, and Abd having made a prior request, I can't see how this is needlessly escalating the dispute, given that WMC could not have reasonably predicted Abd's response, and given that doing so did not prevent further work to find a consensus on a final version. - Bilby (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Record-keeping of bans

1) All site, topic and page bans enacted by the community or administrators should be notified to the users concerned on their talkpages and recorded in a manner that allows other editors to enforce or review the bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I was silent in this proposal about where the logging of the sanction is done. I think that the principle needs to speak to the importance of making the sanction visible during the time that the sanction is active, so that other admins and editors can review it and enforce it. But the exact details will vary depending on the situation, and will evolve over time. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

If you like - would partly remove ambiguity, although recorded in a manner that allows other editors to enforce or review the bans appears to deliberately re-introduce ambiguity. Where should this be done? If you have a place in mind, state it. If you don't.... how can it be done? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Errm, this looks like a copy of Fritzpolls proposal, except you've deleted his central repository being Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. I can only assume that is because you *don't* want that page to be used. Can you clarify? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support in part and oppose in part. WP:RESTRICT is only designed for community and ArbComm bans, and the reason is that community enforcement, where any edit to a covered page may justify a block, because enforcement should be simple, should not be applied based on the unilateral and unverified judgment of a single administrator. The closing admin for a community ban will normally handle notification, it's a piece of the close, as well as any necessary clarification; likewise clerks handle this for ArbComm. An administrative ban, however, is a warning from an administrator that the administrator considers an editor's participation on some page or topic disruptive. If it is short-term, there need be no justification at all, it can be intuitive, shoot-from-the-hip, as long as the admin doesn't have an existing prejudice. However, a long-term ban declared by an administrator sets up conditions for involvement in dispute with an editor, even if the admin was not involved before. Nobody likes to have their decisions rejected, and few people enjoy being banned or blocked and are readily forgiven if they respond uncivilly. The opinion of a banning administrator has no more weight, in theory, than the opinion of a single editor that they should be allowed to edit the article. Hence my position that blocks under administrative bans must be justified, if challenged, by actual disruption, and "defiance of my ban" is not disruption, it is an ordinary disagreement, with no operating presumption as to which way it should be resolved.
• I've thought that we should have, perhaps, a page to record administrative bans. I've come to think not. The purpose of an administrative ban is to avoid disruption, the ban warning is just that, a strong warning. Perhaps, "I see your participation as disruptive, and I don't have time to explain why, and I think you wouldn't agree anyway. Stop or I will block you." In my view, this is, at this point, at most an ordinary dispute, to be resolved through dispute resolution, unless it has actually resulted in a block, in which case the blocked editor may appeal the block through the usual means. I see no good purpose served by a central repository of these informal, ad-hoc bans. It is misleading to call them bans, implying that they are like the other community-enforced bans. If an administrator had no right to block an editor for a non-disruptive edit, absent the ban, the administrator cannot create that right for himself or herself by declaring a ban. --Abd (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, better to leave the community decide where to record those bans, and not impose from Arbcom that a certain page is used. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

'Support as the proponent of such solutions further up this page. I still think it might be best to specify the location, since an obvious one exists. Otherwise they'll all be reported to ANI for maximum knee-jerk reaction Fritzpoll (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support as said before. Mathsci (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fiddling bureacracy and pettifogging. To add a remedy that is irrelevant to the case seems like arbitration overreach. --TS 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Community topic ban confirmed for Abd

2 The Committee endorses the community ban enjoining Abd from editing Cold fusion or its talk page. Should circumstances change, the ban may be lifted by community consensus or by appeal to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

--FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

badly ambiguous as DB notes and Boris implies. Left in this state, a recipe for endless wikilawyering William M. Connolley (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose as moot. If I am to be banned from Cold fusion, it should be based on a direct decision, supported by evidence, that this is in the best interests of the article and the project. The community ban, per the explicit decision of the closing administrator, has expired, and that ban has not been challenged, it does not need confirmation. That left WMC's unilateral ban, which he has claimed remained in force, and which I disputed, it was this ban that I brought here. When he blocked me, the block was reversed promptly without any request on my part, and his reversion of my edit as the edit of a banned editor was undone. I was clearly not banned at that point (or I'd have remained blocked for ban violation,or at least warned). I was not warned based on that edit, but I am now newly banned, and properly, by Rlevse, pending resolution of this case, and I fully agree that this ban is desirable to avoid disruption, which requires no determination of any ultimate decision about the propriety of an enduring ban, hence my unconditional agreement not to edit the pages pending.

As to a direct decision for a ban here, I was facing, at Cold fusion, very difficult conditions, with heavily tendentious editing by Hipocrite and general opposition by Enric Naval and Verbal. I began at Cold fusion without a POV, and my initial edits and discussion were explorations of the editing environment there, and such discussions tend to be lengthy. The point at which the difficulty reached a peak was when Hipocrite arrived, pretty clearly in response to RfC/JzG 3, and when I tried to add sourced material, it was reverted, when I added more sources, it was reverted, and when I added even more source and satisfied every legitimate objection I could think of -- including using a version of a section as suggested by Enric Naval -- it was reverted. Sources which clearly meet RS standards as they stand were utterly rejected on the claim that they were fringe and therefore unreliable, which is why I've framed the dispute there as a violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. My opinion is that the article is currently biased toward the "pathological science" position, not because of "media prejudice" or "truth," but because reliably sourced fact is being excluded, and it's been going on for a long time. One of the editors commenting here has claimed that Cold fusion needs special standards. I've steadfastly disagreed with that. We have the proper standards, already, we merely need to follow them. I've done what has been called original research, but the goal of that original research has been to balance clearly erroneous claims, easily verifiable as such, in sources deemed reliable, not with original research presented in the article, but with the appropriate use of primary source, as the guidelines allow. No synthesis in either direction. To determine if my account here is true and fair would require a great deal of evidence to be examined, and this case doesn't have time for it.

Rather, I propose that the problem be finessed. There are several ways; mentorship is one; and I will propose another. Essentially, assume that my participation at Cold fusion has been partly useful and partly problematic, that those who support me are basing that on the good of it, and that those opposing are basing their objections on what offends them. How can we retain the usefulness, take advantage of all the work I did to become informed on the topic, while avoiding disruption? Beyond mentorship, there is a simple solution. Consider me to be COI. Expect me to have a POV, as we do for COI editors, and then regulate my behavior, quite as we should for COI experts. I'd be fine with a ban from the article itself, as with ScienceApologist, Talk allowed, because my goal is consensus, not wearing out other editors. But because the charges against me, where they have some reason to them, have to do with alleged "talk page domination," I propose that, pending the assignment of a mentor, and some better and more effective guidance through that, I be banned from both pages but allowed to make self-reverted edits, and these edits may be brought back in, as should normally be allowed for the edits of a banned editor, and as I did for one of ScienceApologist's spelling corrections under ban, on the responsibility of another editor as being useful and proper, which includes verification of sourcing, etc., for article edits, and I consent to a restoring editor editing the material if deemed improved by that. If I abuse the right to make self-reverted edits -- it's possible someone could do that -- then I can be blocked for abuse, as I could without a ban.

It has been claimed many times that "nobody reads his walls of text." If that's true, then a WOT post to Talk would be a total waste of my time, nobody would revert it back in, and I would surely give up. Nobody has to read it unless they choose to, thus making a clear reality what I have asserted all along: let those who want to read, read, and those who don't, not. A self-reverted edit requires no attention at all, it merely allows it. It's like a motion not seconded, it's moot. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, see Heimstern's comment below. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose. The community ban was for one month and has expired (as interpreted by uninvolved closing admin Heimstern). Also, Abd has valuable contributions to make to the article; furthermore he has announced that he will keep his comments short, on-topic etc. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the page ban/topic ban/community ban issue has become confused enough that it really ought to be tossed entirely. Shell ^babelfish 00:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Assuming that what I'm reading between the lines here is correct... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Possibly should be taken to the community for reaffirmation just in case of doubt. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this endorsing the community endorsement of William M. Connolley's ban (which has not formally expired, and in which case I support), or is this endorsing the community ban as interpreted by closing admin Heimstern (in which case the ban has expired, and this is Moot). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reiterating that my close ought to bear no weight concerning whether or not the ban should have expired in a month or should be reaffirmed here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restrictions

x) Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring and tendentious editing. Furthermore, Abd is banned from the Cold fusion article and talk pages for one year. Abd is limited to one revert per page per week for all contributions across Wikipedia (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Abd exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Update:1)Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring and tendentious editing. 2)Abd is banned from the Cold fusion article and talk pages for one year. 3) Abd is placed under mentorship for one year with mentors selected by ArbCom. 4) Abd is limited to one revert per page per week for all contributions across Wikipedia (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. 5)Further more, Abd is limited to one post per day to any talk page in any Wikipedia space except for posts that are approved by his mentor(s). Should Abd exceed his 1RR limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, disregard his talk page editing limit, or disregard his Cold fusion page ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Update2 (with 4 week ban added):1)Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring and tendentious editing. 2)Abd is banned from the Cold fusion article, any content related to Cold fusion, and any talk page discussion related to Cold fusion for one year. 3) Abd is placed under mentorship for one year with mentors selected by ArbCom. 4) Abd is banned from Wikipedia for 4 weeks. During the ban, the mentors will be selected and editing guidelines will be developed by the mentors and Abd. The Arbitration Committee reserves the option to shorten or lengthen the time of the ban depending on completion of the mentoring agreement. 5) Abd is limited to one revert per page per week for all contributions across Wikipedia (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. 6)Further more, Abd is limited to one post per day to any talk page in any Wikipedia space except for posts that are approved by his mentor(s). Should Abd exceed his 1RR limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, disregard his talk page editing limit, or disregard his Cold fusion page ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Comment by Arbitrators:

FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking through the suggestions, and will re-write the proposal to include 1)A topic ban for Cold fusion article and talk pages for one year. 2)1RR across all Wikipedia space (because Abd does break 3RR sometimes, and more so that editing warring is not just breaking 3RR policy. 3)An arbcom selected mentor(s). 4)Talk page posting restrictions that will be enforced both by mentors and uninvolved admins as needed. (I need to think about the specifics to get something that will work.)

I'll get something more specific in writing later today. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Added update2 with 4 week ban. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

@MastCell-Re-wrote the italicized part of the proposal to answer your comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

support - this proposal is flawed, because (as others have pointed out) the edit warring part is wrong. OTOH the ban would be very useful, and the 1R limit would allow anyone to remove his talk-page cruft and he wouldn't be able to restore it, so the end result would be good William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) [Struck the flawed bit, per Mastcell's evidence. Sorry, I'd forgot that episode William M. Connolley (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)]

Update looks good, this is a compromise solution I can live with, and Abd might even get back to productive improvement of articles (not that I have many hopes, but from all solutions proposed this is the one that could manage it). I am wary that he will use this second chance to continue his war against the "cabal", and this time choose to go harass Raul over Scibaby's range blocks. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be approved together with #Abd_is_topic_banned. I prefer that the ban from CF is indefinite and not just one year, due to the clear symptoms that Abd is just not going to change his behaviour at that topic just because he is banned from the article during some time. He can appeal to Arbcom or the community if he thinks that he has improved his behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, Abd definitely needs encouragement to engage in discussion; his laconic style has been a real hindrance. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd hardly characterize Abd as "laconic": do you perhaps mean "loquacious"? Erik9 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this misses the point entirely - I don't believe anyone has asserted Abd edit wars and certainly no one has suggested he does so without reams of discussion. This would appear to encourage rather than limit the disruptive behavior. Shell ^babelfish 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd is at his worst on article/user talk pages (as shown here and here) and in dispute resolution venues (here, here, here, and here). Please consider restricting him from these areas or behaviors. My impression is that page reversion is not the prime issue here - instead, it is his tendentious pursuit of idiosyncratic policy ideas and dispute resolution. Skinwalker (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Abd rarely reverts. He arguably exceeded 3RR once. On June 1 Abd arguably didn't revert at all, leaving Hipocrite's revert in place while continuing with other edits. Two apparent editwars (on a talk page and a case page) were situations where Abd was confused and didn't realize he was reverting another editor. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ludicrous Strong Oppose - Abd rarely reverts, and even more rarely more than once. That he was baited into one edit war by Hipocrite on Cold Fusion does not justify such a sanction. --GoRight (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I apologize for my over zealous phraseology. No offense was intended. --GoRight (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did this belief that Abd "rarely reverts" come from? He does edit-war. Take a look; it's instructive reading. WMC, the reviewing admin, declined to block Abd for his blatant 3RR violation, preferring a softer approach. An ironic consequence of WMC's forbearance in that case is that Abd now points to his relatively clean block log as evidence that he doesn't edit-war. The fact that WMC passed up a chance to hand Abd a richly deserved block is, of course, ignored, as it doesn't fit neatly into the abusive admin/cabal storyline (cf. confirmation bias). This case is loony. MastCell ^Talk 03:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Rarely" does not equate to "never". When taken on par with other editors, I still believe that "rarely" is appropriate. --GoRight (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I support the topic ban, but agree with Coppertwig that the statement about one revert per week is too harsh. My hope is that, as recorded in my evidence, Abd will develop an interest in editing other non-controversial articles on WP. I'm not sure that this particular restriction is useful on more standard WP articles. Abd should actively be encouraged to contribute elsewhere on WP. Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If the arbcom is going to go this route, I don't see any reason to limit the cold fusion ban to one year. Also, what is here so far is an improvement over the current situtation, but additional remedies are necessary to deal with Abd's:

1. Wiki-lawyering
2. Personal attacks
3. Penchant for drowning out discussion
4. Meatpuppetry on behalf of banned users, and
5. Disruption of the dispute resolution process when it involves others.

From 2/0's suggestion above, for #1 I'd suggest something along the lines of Abd is prohibited from making statements of or reference to policy. #2 and #4 are solved easily by a prohibition to be interpreted broadly. #3 can be solved by limiting him to one post per talk page per 24 hours of no more than 250 characters. #5 requires something along the lines of this. Violation of any of the above would be enforcable by any admin, using blocks of any duration they see fit. Raul654 (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support the (update) proposal except for one thing (and I fear Boris's irony above was too subtle and lost on the audience): encouraging Abd to discuss things more is not a helpful suggestion. It's Abd's tendentious and disruptive discussion on the cold fusion talk page that's the problem here, and more discussion from him will make the situation worse, not better. Abd tends not to edit articles nearly so much as talk pages. On cold fusion, for example, he edited the article 113 times and the talk page 776 times, over a period of five months or so. Woonpton (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the update: Sold, American. This gives a final chance for Abd to show that he can edit constructively and protects the community in the interim. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would strongly recommend that this be rephrased to include a true topic ban. Abd has already exported his cold-fusion crusade to our articles on blacklight power and the journal Naturwissenschaft. Given recent history, it's a 100% guarantee that the wording of any sanction against Abd will be deconstructed, tested, gamed, and so forth. I assume that the point is to put a halt to the tendentious editing by Abd on cold fusion; if so, then the sanction will need to be broader than just the cold fusion article, since he is more than capable of (and has already begun) exporting the problem to other articles. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley temp desysop and admin tool topic ban

x) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for his edit warring and misuse of administrative tools. William M. Connolley is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored. Additionally, William M. Connolley is warned to not use his administrative tools when he is involved.

Upon regaining his administrator access, William M. Connolley will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Cold fusion or in relation to Abd. Should William M. Connolley violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or alter the restriction.

Comment by Arbitrators:

FloNight♥♥♥ 22:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't give punishment based on a sliding scale for the type of violations. Rather, we make sanctions that will fix a problem. In several situations temp desysop has been used with other restrictions to give admins an involuntary break from the tools and then have them come back with some short term restriction to ease the mind of the Community about them keeping the tools. That is my preferred approach in this situation.

This proposal is based on the Fof that I cite in my proposed Fof. As has been pointed out by many people, WMC has over stepped the line by blocking users when he is too involved to be seen as an unbiased judge. This action MUST stop because it undermines our dispute process to have an admin giving blocks then they are in the middle of Community process to settle a dispute with the user. WMC has done this at least twice (I'm reviewing the other evidence still) during ArbCom cases, so I do not think we can ignore the possibility that he will do it again unless he is put on notice that this type of conduct is not acceptable. I understand that people that work in controversial areas have a tough row to hoe, but that means that they need to be more knowledgeable about how to handle difficult users based on the Community dispute resolution processes. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Whaaaaaaaaat, this remedy is so wrong. WMC's actions stopped the disruption and allowed work in the article to continue. It was an article that already had lots of disruption and Arbcom had a few months ago banned one editor from the article, and another got himself banned. Seriously, temporary desyop of an admin that has been doing a lot of work to keep scientific articles in line is going to send a very wrong message out there. Don't expect uninvolved admins to ever take again bold actions in science articles if you pass this sort of #~#~@#~#~#~#~#~@#@. You should be encouraging admins to go down on disruptive editors in articles that are being disrupted all the time. I'm tired of asking for help in controversial articles and getting no help, and this sort of thing will only worsen it. What admin will go to put peace in Cold fusion if they see how a very good admin gets nailed by Arbcom because of trying to stop an editor that has been disrupting the talk page for months, eh? What will I do the next time we get a POV pusher at that page, when no admin wants to take any action for fear that taking an action to improve the encyclopedia will get him temporaly desysoped and then restricted from ever going to that area again in pain of permanent desysop?

If the "involvement" bit is about involvement in the article, then look at William M. Connolley an uninvolved administrator with respect to Cold fusion at WMC's involvement and support for his rollback to a FA version to see how this is all bunk. WMC wasn't involved in 2009, and in 2006 he was implementing clear consensus and then staying around just long enough to make sure it stayed there. WMC, like me, has been long enough around to having made one or other editor to most of the most prominent controversial articles.

If it's about involvement with Abd, then let's remember that Abd claims that an uninvolved admin becomes involved by the mere action placing a long-term ban. Seriously, just a few hours ago in this same page "a long-term ban declared by an administrator sets up conditions for involvement in dispute with an editor, even if the admin was not involved before"[129]. As pointed out at many places here, Abd's definition of involvement is unrealistic and too overreaching. If applied, we would very quickly run of any uninvolved admin that was knowledgeable at science (the only kind that will dare go into articles like cold fusion where the disputes go deeply into physics and chemistry). Don't apply that definition.

Also, way to punish only one of the persons that were edit-warring. The non-admin editors that also edit-warred aren't given "a break from editing", mainly because they have already agreed to stop edit warring, they are given a block if they edit war again. WMC was only enforcing his still-standing ban that he had imposed more than a month before the case, and he should already know that it's wrong to block during a case. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Some editors will always claim that any editor blocking them is involved, always. Case in point [130] from an editor with a behaviour similar to Abd's, giving similar reasons as to why the banning admin is involved. You never will make those editors happy, and you have to know when to tell them that enough is enough, that they are not being reasonable, and that paying attention to their unreasonable requests would damage the encyclopedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I'd call such a ban an "administrative topic ban". --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Too strong, way too strong. WMC here used a soft approach in the beginning of the case (where a block may have been deserved). The block given during this case was wrong (as Shell above notes, there are two questionable blocks in over a year ...), and here, I note that there was ample time between Abd's notification that he considered the ban over (21:32, 8 August 2009), the actual edit (08:29, 9 August 2009) and the block (10:21, 9 August 2009), and that others should have taken action before WMC. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support although I respectful feel it is too lenent. Connolley has a rich history of administrative abuse.

The two "mistakes" as apologist Shell calls them, are not two, nor are they mistakes, by looking at Connolley's abusive blocks.

Here are the ones I know of thus far from this year:

1. User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Block_of_Abd
2. February 2009 Benjiboi case
3. Lauof Pinch indefinite block case User:Lauof Pinch, who had eight minor edits, edited Connolley's Global cooling page, Connolley blocked him with the explanation of "someone pointless sock; e.g. Global cooling" It was obvious that Connolley didn't know who the editor was, "someones pointless sock" yet he indefinetly banned him.
4. Connolley blocks 75.40.129.51 who has 3 minor, non vandalism, edits, all on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which Connolley regularly edits.
5. Blocked User:A.K.Nole for "trolling" on 30 June 2009,[131] User:A.K.Nole was in an edit war with User:Mathsci, one of Connelleys staunchest defenders here. Connolley also deleted the whole talk page section of User:A.K.Nole as trolling.[132]

In addition to the 36 editors he blocked who he was involved with in previous years, and the at least 7 independent administrators who chastized his blocks.

More to come... Ikip (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I did read your evidence however I felt that it took a great deal out of context, ignored when blocks were later upheld by the community and cherry picked only the most negative comments found. Blocked/banned users are almost never happy to be in that situation and will often make claims that an admin is involved or their block/ban in inappropriate for a variety of reasons, so your evidence of this is rather unsurprising. Its also not uncommon for admins to disagree about a block, however, taking only the negative comments while ignoring the consensus that upheld the block is misleading. I've noticed that you've referred elsewhere to earlier admin action by WMC against you, which leads me to believe it may be unintentionally coloring some of your viewpoints here. Shell ^babelfish 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I did not read your evidence, just a quick look. Although it shows WMC in a broader view, I don't think that that evidence belongs to this case, but to another one (which is not filed). IIRC, this case is evaluating if WMC's ban of Abd is appropriate, and if that is the case, if Abd was violating that, and if so, if Abd was legitimately blocked by WMC the first time, and if that was still the case the second time. I appreciate the colouring you add, it makes me think and consider (and it is reflected in my proposals), but as I am not convinced that the abuse in this case (by WMC) was of a nature which warrants this action, I call this remedy too strong, way too strong. If the Arbitration Committee wants to use the earlier cases, then that is up to them, I have nothing to do with those earlier cases (and I think that this is even my first real encounter with WMC). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarified by flonight. thank you, I was wrong, the underlying logic of my question was incorrect. QUESTION to Proposer Sorry to ask, this is confusing, can you please clarify?

1. In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black, decided 30 June 2009, the admin lost his adminship because of just two cases of blocking editors while being an involved editor.[133][134] One ot these two cases was clear back in October and November 2008.

Additional cases were administrators were desysoped for fewer involved blocks than Connolley

7 December 2006 Admin MONGO [135][136] 18 December 2007 Admin Physchim62 violated Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes once, and this was one of the two listed reasons he was unanimously dysopped: the block "contravenes blocking policy which prohibits blocks against parties in dispute with the blocking admin."[137] 20 June 2007 Admin Rama's Arrow, "he has vigorously dismissed and vitriolically lampooned criticism raised about blocking whilst in conflict." Passed 5-2. January 2008 Admin Vanished user provisionally desysopped for six months (passed 7-2) user_provisionally_desysopped_for_six_months Requests for arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman: "Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute." (passed unanimously) "Vanished user repeatedly used his administrative tools against usual norms and policies, on articles and in disputes where he was personally involved. On several occasions he blocked or prevented editing by users with differing viewpoints, furthering his own position in the dispute" (passed unanimously) 14 January 2008 Admin R. fiend stepped down as admin after complaints abuse of the same Administrative tools Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/R. fiend 5 April 2007 Admin Darwinek The main reason Admin Darwinek was desyssoped was he "displayed a pattern of poor judgment in performing administrative actions, including blocking users...with whom he was engaged in a dispute" [138] 8 November 2007 Admin Alkivar One of the reasons Admin Alkivar was desysopped was for blocking a user he was edit warring with once. [139] Admin Alkivar desysopped. "Philwelch, by blocking and threatening to block users whom he was currently engaged in disputes with, misused his administrative powers." (passed unanimously)

In William Connolley's case, there are many, many more involved blocks.Flonight mentions the unanimous block in the previous arbcom case, but Connolley has also blocked editors he has been involved with dozens more times

Yet the only consideration floated is a 3 month ban on William_M._Connolley. Can you help me understand why? Thank you.Ikip (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Given your involvement in the Man in Black case, I'm surprised that you feel that the two are comparable. At this stage, the accusation against WMC is that he blocked once during the arbitration proceedings when he was clearly involved, and that he was edit warred (on, I think, two? occasions) during the case. Man in Black, on the other had, was found to have been blocked 12 times since becoming an Admin, had edit warred over an extended period, had used sockpuppets abusively, had deleted templates as part of a dispute, and, on top of that, had blocked at least three times when clearly involved. The two a cases are quite different. - Bilby (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the question was not directed to you, but the proposer. I would be very thankful to get a response. Thanks.

The admin's actions you bring up is quite mild compared to Connolley's repeated admin abuse. Connolley doesn't only break the rules, he flaunts breaking the rules in many of the comments he makes. But despite this, Connolley's abuse, for some reason, have been largely ignored. So much so that Solomon, Lawrence (May 03, 2008). "The Opinionator: Solomon". Financial Post. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) wrote: "Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolley, or to those he favours."

Arbcom User:Stephen Bain's proposal is more fitting of the repeated abuse: William M. Connolley desysopped. Ikip (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by Carcharoth

Proposed principles

Article talk page archives

1) Wikipedia's guidelines for talk pages includes among the good practices for talk pages the following: "Read the archives: Many article talk pages contain links to archives, which contain earlier discussions. If you are a new editor to an article, be sure to read them, as they often deal with common content disputes and resolutions to them. You may well find your questions and/or objections have already been answered." The essay Wikipedia:Read the archives states that: "Talk pages that have a good signal to noise ratio are more likely to attract continued participation. An additional benefit to reading the archives is avoiding resurrecting previously settled disputes prompted by commonly-made objections." Furthermore, the essay states: "Those long-term editors of a particular article or topic may consider adding to the article's talk page a FAQ, pointing new editors to a list of answers to common questions and resolutions to previous conflicts. This information would be culled from the archives, and provide newcomers with a sort of "quick reference guide" to getting started in the article."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Pulls a lot from an essay, but an attempt to draw out the problems associated with poor talk page management, and point to some of the sensible solutions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. To work, the FAQ must be rigorously a consensus document, fully NPOV, such that any objection to it is clearly disruptive and tendentious. (We have perfect sourcing in History, and we use attribution, etc, and with attribution, any fact can be made non-controversial.) The FAQ is not about the topic of the article, it is about the article and the article's edit history, so that consensus is documented as it is achieved. Another FAQ can be created somewhere, maybe, about the topic, but that's really better off-wiki, and, on-wiki, we can point to such, including pointing to sites which present the various POVs, which sometimes can even be external links for the article. In general, refactoring or organizing Talk archives has been badly neglected, and, it is, indeed, something to work on. Rather than altering the archive, indexes would be built and disputes summarized. I disagree with GoRight here. The FAQ documents consensus, but it does not fix it. On a related Talk page, a new editor who thinks something missing from the discussion that led to the consensus can introduce it, or can discuss it with one of the editors who was part of that consensus, perhaps one with a congenial POV. What gets avoided with something like this is the same debate over and over. Absolutely, contrary to "actual practice." Contrary in a good way. --Abd (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. Goes with proposals about not repeting the same topics. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment - This sounds like good advice but in it's current form it reads counter to WP:CCC, at least IMHO. To me it makes it sound like once a topic has been raised and some set of editors come to a resolution that changes to that resolution are not longer viable/acceptable. I believe that this runs counter to actual practice in that sense. --GoRight (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A good idea in general, but relevance to the present case is not obvious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a good comment. My reading of this here is that the editing on Talk:Cold fusion was not having "a good signal to noise ratio [which is] more likely to attract continued participation.", and that in discussions on that talkpage involved editors ignored "reading the archives [to] avoiding resurrecting previously settled disputes prompted by commonly-made objections." Was that what William M. Connolley was trying to prevent from happening? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Cold fusion talk page archives

1) The article cold fusion (the locus of this dispute) has (as of August 2009) a total of thirty-four (34) talk page archives, dating from November 2003. Discussion is frequently repetitive and often lacks focus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Stating number and timescale of talk page archives, and the general tenor of debate. Some idea of the total size of the discussions a new editor theoretically has to read through to get up to speed would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yeah. Also, lots of good suggestions that get archived because they are lost in the noise. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Certainly, yes, but I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of the present arbitration case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Cold fusion talk page FAQ

1) To improve accessibility of the article to new editors and administrators, and to avoid redundant discussion of points raised previously, it is advised that a FAQ (frequently asked questions) page is written for the cold fusion article talk page. This shall summarise commonly raised questions, and shall link to previous discussions in the talk page archives. In addition, future discussions shall be archived and organised by topic, as well as chronologically. If a particular portion of the article is a subject of repeated and contentious debate, it shall be split out to a talk subpage to allow fuller discussion (followed by later archival), to allow discussion of the rest of the article to continue unhindered.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. An attempt to address some of the talk page behaviour that, in my view, impedes progress in these sort of situations. This group of principle/finding/rememdy doesn't have to actually be formally moved to the proposed decision, but I hope some of the regular editors of the cold fusion article take some of these ideas on board. Examples of best practice in this area are available - do a search in talk page namespace for "FAQ". Currently there are between 100 and 250 hits on a search like this (intitle:FAQ in talk namespace). Good examples are: Talk:Intelligent design/FAQ, Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ, Talk:Global warming/FAQ, Talk:Evolution/FAQ, and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Some (maybe most) of the problems are due to editor conduct, but an improvement in talk page management would help as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Do you seriously think Abd (and perhaps others) will write less if someone points him to a FAQ?" - no, but if it is a long rambling comment that is difficult to parse, it can be ignored and only answered by those who want to answer it. If it covers several different points, those points can be split into different discussions. Simplest of all is to leave a short reply saying "sorry, that was too long, could you get someone to summarise that, please?". Then move on. Sometimes getting drawn into a debate like that is the key mistake. I am serious that good talk page management can really focus discussions. I took a look through some of the cold fusion talk pages, and it was not only Abd - others were contributing to the mess, from both sides. One thing I will say - if this FAQ doesn't get written, then that will show that both sides in the current dispute enjoy arguing on talk pages more than methodically and constructively moving an article forward. Here's another suggestion: instead of replying to a long post by Abd, find something to improve in the article instead - there is no rule that says improvement of other areas of the article has to stop while there is an argument over the sources used in the article. The aim should be to improve the article, not get drawn into endless debates. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that the concept of Archive indexes is very useful as well. Those are bot-generated. Follow the instructions at User:HBC Archive Indexerbot and you will be able to see the results at Talk:Cold fusion/Archive index. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

oppose - this and previous stuff in this section. You mean well; thanks for trying to help; but all of this fails to address the central problem of recent t:CF, which is Abd. You should have noticed the difference between what it is like now, and what it was like when he was there William M. Connolley (talk) 08:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Excepting for the edit war over my post there, the other day, (I'm amazed what some will risk a block to edit war over), it's been pretty quiet indeed. We have an article which is impoverished compared to what is in the sources (and I mean, especially, the history, on which we have abundant detailed source, such as Taubes and Huizenga and Simon and others. The first two are serious skeptics, Huizenga was practically a one-man crusade against Cold fusion, the opinions in Huizenga are highly biased but the facts are generally solid. Same with Taubes, serious journalist, great writer, and with an axe to grind in this case, we have sources reviewing the sources. Taubes is careful with fact and loose with his mindreading.) We have a vast body of research and abundant secondary sources, peer-reviewed and academic, most of it excluded on "undue weight" arguments, but attempts to properly fork the topic were forcibly merged back by JzG, it was one of his actions-while-involved, he protected the redirect. Sure. Quiet. Like a graveyard is quiet. --Abd (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. Of course! Thanks, Carcharoth. If ArbComm is inclined to take seriously the claim that long posts, per se, disrupt Talk, there are many nondisruptive responses: collapsing, or archiving a long post to history as the original and bringing back subtopics, and an editor who is not interested can simply not touch it. I've suggested, as a sanction that would be no problem for me, a topic ban from Cold fusion and the Talk page that explicitly allows me to make self-reverted edits (aside from the usual exceptions, vandalism etc. BTW, there was vandalism to [Cold fusion] yesterday, stood for more than 24 hours. I saw it immediately because I know the topic. Another IP reverted it eventually. I thought of reverting it, but I'm taking the current ban very seriously). If I were allowed self-reverted edits, I'd have done so with an edit summary that made it easy to identify the problem. Efficient. --Abd (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good. It's good general advice to improve the talk page, which I appreciate. (notice that I am extremely bad at writing FAQs, so I can't help writing it). Let's just keep in mind that this would have had exactly zero effect in preventing disruption and/or advocacy from Pcarbonn, Jed or Abd. I will set up right now that "Archive index" thing.

Some of the advive should have a remedy of its own: not replying, asking for a summary, and going instead to improve the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Do you seriously think Abd (and perhaps others) will write less if someone points him to a FAQ? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, but it is helpful in notifying new or not previously involved editors of the current state of discussion and prevailing consensus. Shell ^babelfish 00:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. I was thinking of this too. Also an Archive Guide: a list, edited by hand, of links to talk page archive threads, such as I started for the Circumcision article here: Talk:Circumcision/Archive guide. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to WMC: See my comment in section #State of the Cold Fusion article (second comment in this diff) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth: The Circumcision page has both a bot-generated archive index, and a hand-edited archive guide. Both are useful for different purposes. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• In principle a good plan, but I am afraid that this fails to address the source of the problem. The problem is not the new editor who is coming to the page, it is more the repetetive nature of Abd, and the way 'consensus' is treated. This could simply be done by Abd (making him the FAQ): let Abd point the new editor to the relevant discussions in the archives (with the help of others, in case Abd misses a relevant discussion he is not aware of). Abd should thereby keep in mind, that if the new editor brings in new arguments, or gives new weight to a previous achieved consensus, that consensus can change through that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support A FAQ would indeed be a good thing to have. Note that if it is as editable as any other page, then even if Abd writes its first draft, others can trim out the fat. V (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Thatcher

Proposed principles

Proxy editing

1) It is sometimes alleged that one editor edits in lieu of another editor who is unable to edit due to a block or a ban. While this has been referred to repeatedly in this case as "meatpuppeting", a more correct term is "Proxy editing." Wikipedia:Ban#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users states that editors are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Editors who edit on behalf of a restricted editor (i.e. a page ban, topic ban, revert limit, or full block from editing) are subject to the same restriction. Good faith must be extended, but persistent evidence that one editor is acting on behalf of a blocked or banned editor subjects that editor to possible sanction. Such evidence should be evaluated by independent editors and administrators. Editors in doubt as to whether their edits violate the proxy editing policy are advised (but not required) to seek advice from other experienced editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is in some ways complex and in other ways simple. If a banned user e-mails someone pointing out vandalism made by someone else that has gone unreverted for months, then making that edit (as long as you are clear it is indeed vandalism) is not proxy editing, or is it? But if the same banned user e-mails saying "I've been banned for saying XYZ, but this source shows I'm right, can you have a look at this?" then that is more tricky to handle. Some would say "ignore the e-mail entirely". There are other approaches, though, such as looking at the source and, if you agree, to either post to the banned editor's talk page pointing this source out, or to post to the article talk page, in both cases openly saying you were e-mailed by the banned editor. However, this could open up the floodgates for lots more such proxy requests. One request may be OK. The second request should be met by saying that user should asked to be unbanned, rather than try and edit by proxy. There are also cases where an editor has been banned for conduct reasons, but has something useful to contribute (maybe in terms of content or points to make in a discussion) - there are at least two examples of this I can think of this year, including one case where ArbCom voted to allow proxy editing (hopefully a rare exception). More problematic are cases where an editor has been banned for pushing a point-of-view. Others may have pushed that POV before and others may do so in the future. Not all will be proxying or meatpupetting. To take that stance is to ban any POV that gets pushed and discourage any further discussion of it, which goes against NPOV. There should always be room to civilly discuss different POVs. It is when the discussions become excessive and repetitive and disruptive, and particular POVs are being pushed (not merely mentioned, but actively promoted with undue weight) that action needs to be taken. Of course, that shifts the argument to "what is appropriate weight". Sometimes the difference in the WP:WEIGHT allocations that people argue for are so small, that I hesitate to call that POV pushing. More like WP:WEIGHT-lawyering. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Trying to make sense of the proposed meatpuppet principle.Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If an edit is within policy, i.e. properly sourced, cited, and doesn't violate BLP, then it doesn't matter if the edit appears to support the agenda of a "banned" editor. Remember, an entire town in Utah was once blocked from Wikipedia because one of Wikipedia's admins, in his superior wisdom, evidently thought that someone in that town just might edit on behalf of a banned editor. Cla68 (talk) 09:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Also, Carcharoth makes some excellent points. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Cla, yes and no. Editors are supposed to be banned for their behavior, not their content, so it is possible that if a second editor follows the advice and edit recommendations of the banned editor he will run afoul of those same behavioral standards. The point of this principle is to recognize that there is the potential for problems and that some proxy editing is actionable, but that each case needs to be individually evaluated, preferably by uninvolved editors. Thatcher 16:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If I make an edit that is (otherwise) within policy and I am not banned from doing so, why should the fact that some other editor misbehaved and got themselves banned prevent me from making it? If I take full responsibility for the edit then I can be held accountable for my actions based on my OWN behavior rather than that of someone else. Why is this not the obvious and most sensible way to view this issue?

"so it is possible that if a second editor follows the advice and edit recommendations of the banned editor he will run afoul of those same behavioral standards" - This is certainly a possibility and no one is denying it. That is the whole point of stressing that the second editor takes full responsibility for their own edits. If the second editor becomes a problem then it would be perfectly acceptable to ban the second editor based on their own behavior. There is no need to make reference to the bans of anyone else to do so. If you allow the ban of one editor to be extended to a second editor based purely on content similarity then you are, in effect, banning that content and not the individual's behavior. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important that the arbcom pass this principle in order to deter a number of people who, in recent weeks, have decided that the prohibition on restoring edits by banned users is optional. Raul654 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Elsewhere on this page I also raised the point that somebody might independently post something much like what somebody else posted, who was banned, and then some people will assume that the new poster is acting on behalf of the banned person. I even went so far as to describe a scenario in which one person deliberatly tries to get someone to present an entirety of one side of a controversial issue, and then gets that person banned, just so that the complete POV becomes "illegal" for anyone else to post per the "meatpuppetry" or "proxy editing" rules, leaving the opposite POV free-and-clear. PLEASE NOTE that if Abd is banned from the Cold Fusion discussion, a very large amount of material relevant to the topic could be affected in this way. V (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proxy administrating

2) It is sometimes alleged that one admin acts edits in lieu of another admin who is unable to act directly due to involvement in a subject area or due to a prior conflict with another editor. Administrators are responsible for their own actions, and must not take action (such as blocking or threatening to block an editor) unless, in their own independent judgement, the action is justified by the circumstances. All admin actions are subject to review at the admin noticeboards and by Arbcom. Good faith must be extended, but persistent evidence that one admin is acting on behalf of another admin in furtherance of that admin's editorial or personal agendas should be brought before Arbcom. Admins in need of assistance are advised (but not required) to seek assistance from a broad spectrum of other admins, to avoid the appearance of favoritism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

One of the frustrations of arbitration is seeing poor admin actions get inadequately resolved by the community, and consistently poor admin actions not dealt with by an RfC and eventually arbitration. For every admin that gets brought to arbitration, there are others that go quiet, or slink away, or get a slap on the wrist, or make some half-hearted effort at reform, or have some popular support base in a particular segment of the community (and possibly a silent majority not wanting to speak out), and nothing further is done. To be fair, there are also cases of admins that reform and change their behaviour based on feedback on their actions. One of the things I would encourage is people methodically engaging in dispute resolution if they fundamentally believe an admin is flouting policy, but not the way Abd does (which is excruciating in the extreme), but by clearly laying out desired changes in admin conduct at an RfC, and then bringing it to arbitration if no change is forthcoming. Carcharoth (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Trying to make sense of the proposed meatpuppet principle.Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that Wikipedia's administrative structure is fundamentally flawed. It needs some adult supervision, such as Tony1's "Admin review board", endowed with formal authority to review all admin actions, keep scorecards, desysop poorly performaing admins, and offer advice and guidance in order to standardize admin responses to routine and repetitive situations. I believe ArbCom has the authority to set-up such a board and put it into action. Cla68 (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. If an involved admin asks another admin to make a decision, the decision should be made impartially, not with a prejudgement that the involved admin is right. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would make the corresponding argument here as I have above. --GoRight (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Query A bit too elliptical for dullards such as myself. Which admin was proxying for which other one in this case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There may not be. I was addressing the current proposed principle #6, which mentions both admins and editors, and which seems to place the burden of proof on editors and admins not to act in ways that "look suspicious" to others, without regard to the reasonableness of that view. If someone sees cabals behind every bush, is that the person from who you are to avoid the appearance of impropriety? I'm trying to say here that editor and admin actions that look suspicious should be given a good faith assumption and be judged by uninvolved editors and admins. Thatcher 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Disruptive editing

1) Abd (talk · contribs) has many of the hallmarks of a disruptive editor

1. edits occur over a long period of time...no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive [140] [141]
2. prevents other editors from reaching consensus on how to improve an article [142]
3. acts uncivilly, interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article [143] [144] [145]
4. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. [146] [147] [148]
5. Rejects community input [149] [150] [151]
6. Campaign to drive away productive contributors [152] [153] [154] [155]
7. Refusal to 'get the point'...perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input [156] [157] [158] [159]
8. Inserts himself into unrelated disputes [160] [161] [162] [163]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suspect that arbs won't want to pass this one because it goes outside of the topic of cold fusion and that it will have to go to Abd#3. (replied to Tatcher below) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

There are many more diffs I could list, including comments from arbitrators themselves on these case pages (for example, the sheer number and prolixity of the Cold fusion talk archives and the fact that the same points get argued over and over to no lasting effect). Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Enric, the arbitrators can go outside the scope of the original request if they choose, and all the diffs and links I used are drawn from evidence presented for this case. Thatcher 14:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I hope that they pass this, so Abd finally realizes that he was really being disruptive, and he can't argue that arbs validated his behaviour outside cold fusion because they didn't address it (and, yes, he will do that). It would also support better why some remedies are necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Abd banned from Cold Fusion

1) Abd is banned from the cold fusion article, any content related to cold fusion, and any talk page discussion related to cold fusion for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's better if this is passed by separate. This way, if the proposal with the mentorship fail for some reason then the CF ban doesn't get affected. Idem for the other remedies. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Splitting remedies, adjusting some.Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd placed on editing restriction (Mentorship)

2) Abd is placed under mentorship for one year with mentors selected by ArbCom.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I doubt this will work, but put it up for a vote.Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd banned for 4 weeks pending mentorship

3) Abd is banned from Wikipedia for 4 weeks. During the ban, the mentors will be selected and editing guidelines will be developed by the mentors and Abd. The Arbitration Committee reserves the option to shorten or lengthen the time of the ban depending on completion of the mentoring agreement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I prefer my specific remedies below which can be enforced by any uninvolved admin. I've split the remedies partly to get mentorship off on its own, since I don't think it will work. If mentorship fails, this proposal should automatically fail, unless you vote a separate proposal on a straightforward 4 week block.Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restriction (revert limit)

4) Abd is limited to one revert per page per week for all contributions across Wikipedia (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard. Usually reasonably effective. Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restriction (prolixity)

5) Abd is limited to posting a maximum of 500 words per day to any discussion ^page (including but not limited to article talk and project and project talk pages) except for posts that are approved by his mentor(s).

Comment by Arbitrators:

The definition of what constitutes separate discussions could be a problem. There are a number of different methods that could be used here. The key is to produce something that is simple to operate and is transparent. In particular, each request he makes to his mentor(s) should be openly recorded so it is clear how that works and to what level his requests are being granted or denied. Examples of other systems are ones where Abd posts on a subpage in his userspace (to be blanked periodically and subject to the same civility and other restrictions as elsewhere, and not to be a place for others to comment as otherwise that would merely move the discussion elsewhere), and only posts a summary to an actual discussion. I would be inclined to this, plus a system where Abd only gets one post of 500 words per day in each talk or other discussion namespace (i.e. including discussion in Wikipedia namespace) outside his own user space, the exceptions being article space. He should be free (indeed encouraged) to edit articles outside of the interests he has developed so far, and if his edits are reverted to discuss with his mentor(s) how he should handle that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Agree that word limit is better than number of posts. The walls of text are a key problem of Abd's editing style and must be addressed in this case. I think it will be pretty clear whether post discussions are on the same subject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Reasonable restriction that address the problem. (mind you, I can imagine Abd posting every day to the same page, so he posts 500*7 = 3500 word per week over several weeks, but that would merit a separate discussion). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A word limit is better than a one post per day limit, per Phil153. Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Prefer the one-post limit, mainly for practical reasons as noted here.[164] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There are good arguments on both sides. Thatcher 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think both are in order - one post per page per day, of limited number of words (or character, or bytes). Raul654 (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I think a word limit is superior to a one post per day limit is because on post per day can really hinder discussion in areas where Abd is collaborating productively, which I think could be many articles where he doesn't have a strong opinion. It also feels very restrictive. A maximum daily word limit + say 3 posts per topic page day allows discussion and encourages brevity. To state the obvious, it encourages better discussion habits because he can post more if he's succint and on topic, whereas a one post per day limit encourages exactly the oppposite. As for the issue of enforcement brought up by Boris, it's not a big deal. No one has to check it. It's a simple case of having an instant remedy available should Abd start posting excessively again. Phil153 (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted the word "page" after "discussion" to address Carcharoth's comment. I intended to allow Abd to contribute up to 500 words per discussion page per day. I did not intend that he could contribute 500 each to three difference subsections on Talk:Foo and claim that they were separate discussions. Also, I think in practice the 500 word limit will be dealt with flexibility at WP:AE. I doubt that he would be sanctioned for an occasional 508 word comment. (On the other hand, if he posted 10 comments in a row that were exactly 501 words, he might be sanctioned for gaming.) The Proposed decision talk page has a byte to word ratio of 5.7, both for Abd and for all comments combined, so the limit could be stated as 3000 bytes (allowing for a sig and wikimarkup) but "500 words" follows KISS. Thatcher 14:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Something I just thought of is proxy editing by others on Abd's behalf. It's reasonable to anticipate a situation where Abd puts material on his talk page or a subpage, then someone else transfers this material to other talk pages. This would not necessarily be verbatim, but paraphrased or in summary form (note some individuals have offered to serve as "translators" for Abd). The proposal should clarify whether this is permissible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The principle is, Abd will not be allowed to drown out discussion on talk pages. If he posts a long argument on his personal talk page and then posts a link. "see my argument..." then the other participants have a choice of reading or not, and if he makes points that are worth discussion, they can be copied or referred to at the discretion of the other participants. On the other hand, someone who copied Abds post's verbatim would probably fall under the policy on Wikipedia:Ban#Editing_on_behalf_of_banned_users and could then be placed under the same restriction. I tend not to get preoccupied with all the possible variations and excursions on a remedy, and take things on a case by case basis when and if they arise. Thatcher 17:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restriction (MYOB)

6) Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

MYOB = Mind Your Own Business? I agree in principle, but is this actually in any Wikipedia policy or guidleine and should it be? Or does it only apply to some people? I suppose the opposite of WP:MYOB (redlink left to be filled in if anyone thinks it is worth it) is WP:OWN. For example, what if Abd expressed an interest in giving third opinions following requests at WP:3O? Carcharoth (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

Comment by parties:

This would help a great deal, the mentor shouldn't approve any of the usual Abd's crusades for perceived wrongdoings. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He butts in to disputes involving editors when there is no underlying relationship or reason to get involved.Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Re to Carcharoth. I know that ArbCom has previously employed similar remedies with good success. Everyking3 found that Everyking's comments at AN/I tended to be inflammatory and ill-informed, and barred him from posting on AN and its subpages except in cases where he was directly involved. I know another case (I don't recall the editors involved, sorry) explicitly forbade an editor from offering his services as a mediator after it was found that he was hindering rather than helping in dispute resolution. If the Committee finds that Abd's addition of himself to disputes is usually unhelpful or disruptive, there is ample precedent (not to mention common sense) to support this type of remedy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Certain aspects of policy encourage or at least tolerate editors offering third party comments on disputes. The goal, of course, is to reach agreement or consensus on some matter of content or behavior. Abd has shown that he can not do this without being disruptive and fueling the dispute rather than calming it down. Hence a ban on inserting himself into disputes between third parties. Thatcher 16:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restriction (Disruptive editing)

7) Abd is admonished for his edit-warring and disruptive and tendentious editing. Should Abd make any edits judged to be disruptive or tendentious as defined at WP:DE or WP:TE, he may be banned by any uninvolved administrator from the affected page or topic for any reasonable period of timeup to 3 months. A ban may only be enacted after Abd has been warned on his talk page that his conduct is disruptive and that a ban is under consideration. Abd may appeal any page or topic ban to WP:ANI or WP:AE, but all bans remain in full effect during the appeal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Support - Yes. allows some flexibility, but the general idea would be bans of months I suspect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Teeth are good. Way too much disruption to go away with just an admonishment. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, please remove "reasonable" with, well, with a specific reasonable time period so it can't be wikilawyered what "reasonable" is. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Some teeth. Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest taking out the word 'reasonable'. Abd and his apologists will use it to wiki-lawyer against such bans, especially indefinite ones. Raul654 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest you strike "for any reasonable period of time" as vague and unnecessary. We should not presume that admins will be "unreasonable" if we don't explicitly instruct them otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not intend that admins be able to apply indefinite discretionary sanctions. There is always the possibility that a difficult editor will improve his behavior. I think 3 months at most, per page or topic. If, after the page or topic ban expires, the editor resumes his difficult behavior, a new 3 month ban can be applied. I generally use bans of between 1 week and 3 months depending on the circumstances. We can swap out "any reasonable period of time" for "up to 3 months per incident" if you want. Thatcher 01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. A specification of three months (or one, or six, or whatever) will reduce lawyering over what constitutes a "reasonable" period. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I feel pity for the admin who enforces this discretionary sanction. Can we at least include a detailed, reasonably wikilawyer-proof definition of "involvement", in the ounce-of-prevention category? MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. "An editor A is directly involved with an editor B, if A and B ever edited the same article (including talk other name spaces), or if editor A disagrees with Abd. Involved is the smallest equivalence relation that contains directly involved". I think that's fairly Wikilawyer-proof. HTH. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Duration and extension of editing restrictions

8) Abd's mentorship and all editing restrictions enacted during this case will remain in effect for one year. If, during the year or within one year of expiration, Abd returns to a pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing, the restrictions in this case may be reinstated, jointly or severally, for a further year, on the agreement of any 3 uninvolved administrators. Application for reinstatement of the restrictions to be made at WP:AE.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Modification or extension of arbitration cases is not something WP:AE should have to deal with. That is what the requests for clarification and/or amendment pages are for. Also, as written, does not distinguish adequately between amendments during the year, and the proposed one year of probation after that. It seems to be saying that during the year the restrictions are in place, those restrictions may be re-instated, which makes no sense. I think you meant re-instatement to only apply to the "within one year of expiration" bit, and for continued disruption during the initial year to be met with increased restrictions. Still, I think such extensions and re-instatements should be done by ArbCom, not at WP:AE. Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Simple means to reinstate the restrictions without a full case should they be necessary.Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question - which remedies, exactly, does this apply to? Does this mean that all remedies expire in a year (including, for example, the prohibition on involving himself in other peoples' dispute resolution processes), or just the cold fusion ban and general probabation? Raul654 (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My intention writing this is that all remedies would expire in a year, but they could be reinstated any time during the second year if 3 uninvolved admins decided so, and they could be reinstated as a group or individually (say, if he has suddenly become concise and respectful in his comments toward others but is still acting poorly on CF articles). Arbcom does not usually do indefinite sanctions, and the Everyking case shows that indefinite sanctions can be a problem. Indefinite denies that most important of all commodities, the possibility of hope. I am aiming for restrictions that expire in one year but that can easily be reinstated, should he resume his prior problematic behavior after the restrictions expire. Thatcher 01:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Abd violate any restriction, he may be blocked for up to 5 days per violation. After the fifth block the maximum allowable duration increases to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

This should (hopefully) curtail Abd's taste for defying restrictions. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Standard. Thatcher 05:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop/Analysis

Evidence that WMC was involved prior to banning Abd

I'd been wondering if there was to be more evidence of prior involvement, but as Abd has declared that he's done, I wanted to comment on the evidence provided. The evidence presented that WMC was involved with Abd boils down to:

• They were on opposing sides of the GoRight RfC/U, but didn't otherwise engage each other;
• Abd "warned" WMC on two occasions that WMC's actions could lead to a loss of an admin bit ([165], [166]), and both times his comments were brushed off by WMC ([167], [168]);
• Abd argued that WMC edited with a kind of "non-technical" COI at an AN/I discussion; and
• WMC expressed an opinion about Abd at the JzG RfC/U - specifically that a topic ban might be in order.

In short, I can't see how any of that entails involvement, as there is no significant level of interaction other than the (very) occasional expression of opinion, and I would have thought that the community demanded a bit more than that. Which means that we're left with "WMC is a part of a cabal, and the cabal is involved with Abd", but I don't think we can go down that line. That said, once the case was started, they were involved - but I can't see the involvement that Abd claimed as the basis for the case. - Bilby (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agree. Also, in the subpage I made an analysis of WMC's claimed "involvement" in 2006 in Cold Fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

At this point, this is all the evidence anyone needs,

1. #Background by arbcom User:Stephen Bain,
2. #WMC_blocking_as_involved_admin by arbcom User:FloNight, and
3. arbcom User:Rlevse's comment.[169]

If anyone cares to argue involvment they can take it up with these three arbcom members. Ikip (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't help either. The first is merely a claim that WMC protected the page due to an edit war. There's no involvement there. The second is that WMC has blocked other editors when involved in the past. The third is is that WMC blocked Abd during the case. That is involved, but I think we all agree to that. The issue is whether or not WMC was involved in terms of Abd when he announced the ban and subsequently blocked Abd the first time, and the evidence on that subject is, I'd argue, seriously lacking. And that, after all, is a good chunk of the justification for this case. - Bilby (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A finding that William M. Connolley was "involved", on the evidence summarised by Ikip above, would have very, very severe consequences for Wikipedia administrators going forwards. I cannot conceive of an arbitration committee so hostile to the good of Wikipedia that they would, as a body, manufacture such a perverse and unjust fiction. --TS 08:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

once an interaction includes warnings about deaminship on the one hand, and a topic ban proposal on the other, they are involved. Any admin who would take admin action after that sort of exchange would be doing so wrongly. There is no danger to the rest of us. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

If anyone has the time, it would be nice to know if there is any truth in the assertion that the volume of material is "mostly by Abd and his proponents". My impression is that both sides have produced large amounts of material, and that the individual volume produced by Abd has been matched by the fact that there are more people on the "other side", thus presenting large amounts of material by numbers rather than volume. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So a definite imbalance, but not as much as expected and probably no more of an imbalance than in other cases. I must admit that the sheer volume and repetition is a bit overwhelming, but at least the repetition means that it is not as much as it seems. If anyone wants to produce an exhaustive analysis, they are welcome, but that is enough for my purposes. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I haven't done an analysis except early on, I put somewhere a link to a copy of the two pages with the "cabal" mambers and my "faction" excluded, and there was hardly anything left. My Evidence page "responses" are quite long, because I've been utterly overwhelmed with the volume of proposals and comment flowing in here. A piece of mud can be tossed with a few words, to respond to that with anything more than a smart-alec retort can take many more words, and when there are a dozen editors tossing mud.... I did ask that this page be frozen until the evidence was complete. Wouldn't it be a great idea to have trial first (presentation of evidence) and verdict (deliberation on the evidence and remedies) after? I still have proposals to make, impossible to get to them. I believe that, overall, this will prove to have been useful, in ways that most would have trouble anticipating. But we could accomplish better with less effort, much less effort. Unfortunately, it will require examining what, supposedly Wikipedia is not. Some of what it is not covers solutions developed to the large-community coordination problem, over many centuries, efficient, known to work, so, by nailing those NOTs down, we have tied ourselves to the stake and wonder why so many of us get burned out. The basic Wikipedia vision is very, very sound. The devil is in the details. --Abd (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

abd, goright, coppertwig, ikip and objectivist have produced 47.2%. Abd produced 30.1% alone. Beestra, naval, Raul, mathsci, connely, chronie, 2over, shortbrigade, bilby, mastcell, toat, verbal, schultz, Spartaz, and woonpton produced 37.6. The balance are arbiters, clerks, and individuals with less than 1%. I counted all added text, even if later removed. Removals were not counted to the negative. Methology on request. 166.137.133.15 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved party, with a little time on my hands, I have read some of this Arbitration request. The mind boggles at the sheer volume of material, mostly by Abd and his proponents. In my opinion, any remedies should be to limit Abd's involvement on the Cold Fusion article and talk - he is exhausting. And if there is a Cabal around WMC, count me in as a fan. Wizzy…☎ 09:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Carcharoth's question above: I don't have the time, and I can't imagine anyone does, to test this assertion (that Abd and his proponents have furnished the bulk of the verbiage in this case) fully by analyzing the entire case. However, after reading your question, I went to the top of this page and just started working down as far as I could go before I needed to go to bed. I managed to tally the first two sections of this page (Proposals by Abd and Proposals by Raul654). In these two sections, Abd, GoRight and Coppertwig contributed 73,597 characters of text; Abd alone contributed 57,236 characters of text. The other 18 editors commenting in these two sections (excluding arbitrators and clerks) contributed 48,936 characters of text. Woonpton (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Response to 166.137 above: Yes, I'd like a description of your methodology, please. Are your percentages percentages of edits, or percentages of text? And is it the entire case or part of it? If you have a tool that calculates percentage of text on a page contributed by an individual editor, I'd sure like to know it; I've been laboriously taking one proposal at a time, cutting and pasting the text from each group (Abd, GoRight, Coppertwig, ikip and objectivist are one group and everyone else who has edited the page, except for arbitrators and clerks, is in the other group. Since the assertion being tested here is that Abd and his followers are contributing the bulk of the verbiage here, I think it's got to be volume of text rather than number of edits thats the measurement unit.

I've worked down through Stephen Bain's proposals on this page, and need to take a break, besides, the remaining proposals have been added in the last day or so and haven't been greatly commented on yet, so might not add much to the totals anyway. The totals at this point are 392,729 characters of text contributed by Abd and his followers, and 280,278 characters of text contributed by everyone else all together. This comes to 58% of the text being contributed by Abd and his group. Comparing volume of text devoted to 22 proposals from the Abd group (Abd, GoRight, Objectiviist, Coppertwig, and Ikip), the Abd group contributed 88,546 characters of text to these 22 proposals, or 4,025 characters per proposal; the other 25 or so editors commenting on these proposals contributed 60,005 characters of text all together, or 2,727 characters per proposal. Looking at the proposals from the proposers who might be identified as belonging to Abd's "cabal," (Raul654, WMC, Stephan Schultz, Bilby, Enric Navral, and Beetstra) the Abd group contributed 148,262 characters of comment to these 39 proposals, or 3,802 characters per proposal, and everyone else together contributed 104,233 characters of comment to these "cabal" proposals, or 2,673 characters per proposal. So Abd's group produced actually more text per proposal responding to their own proposals, than they did responding to the "cabal" proposals, but in both cases, the proposals from the Abd group and the proposals from the "cabal" group, Abd and friends produced 58% of the verbiage, which is exactly the same percentage they produced of the total. In other words, the argument that Abd had to produce so much text was because he was "utterly overwhelmed with the volume of proposals and comment flowing in here" just doesn't hold water. Woonpton (talk) 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton: Did you count all the material that Abd eventually spun off into collapse boxes, subpages, diffs, and the like? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried to, but I was working fast, so I can't be sure that I got everything. One thing I've noticed in the past is that Abd has removed whole reams of his text from project pages without even leaving a note that text has been removed; he did that on the AN/I report I filed, wrote a pages-long response and then, after people had responded to it, simply deleted it. Since in my analysis here I was working from the current version of the pages, I wouldn't have seen anything that had been there before and then simply removed without a link to it somewhere else, and due to the sheer volume of text, I'd say there's a 5-15% probability that I missed some links to text moved elsewhere. I did open all the collapse boxes I saw and counted the text inside them. I find it just incomprehensible that people seem to think it's not unusual or remarkable that one person has singlehandedly produced more text than everyone else contributing to the case put together. The only way this would make sense would be if you adopted Abd's misconstruction that everyone else contributing to the case is in a cabal against him, in which case it would seem reasonable that he should match, even overmatch, the output of everyone else in the case. But that is a misconstruction, not an accurate reflection of reality. Woonpton (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree that that is a remarkable quantity of text. I disagree that just because the quantity is remarkable, that automatically means it is disruptive or useless or other things. I stand by what I've previously written on this page about that: Nobody is required to read it all; the task of editing naturally involves digesting a lot of material; anyone who complains about it is basically revealing their own shortcomings as an editor. V (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody -- including the arbitrators -- needs to read all the evidence in an arbitration case? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's different; that's not about deciding what (and why) to put something in a Wikipedia article. Do you disagree, that most of what Abd wrote on the Cold Fusion Talk page was about that? Or am I confusing something? (Hmmmm some of this discussion appears to be about that; some appears to be about writings on THIS page...please take my comment above to apply only to article Talk pages.) V (talk) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re Carcharoth: Hmmm....It doesn't seem overly disproportional to you that Abd, GoRight, Coppertwig and Objectivist have produced 58% of the text on this page, even though they only comprise 12.5% of the 32 editors who have contributed more than 10 comments on the page? I've also analyzed the evidence now, and can report that Abd's evidence alone mounts to 318,432 characters; the other three bring it to 402,219 characters for the "Abd group." The evidence presented by all 14 of the other editors submitting evidence, yes, including linked evidence on user pages, amounts to 81,976 characters altogether. That doesn't seem like a very marked imbalance to you? I'm not sure what you could consider an exhaustive analysis; I've spent 12 solid hours cutting and pasting all the text on the workshop page, except for the proposals submitted in the last day or so by FloNight and Carcharoth, and the evidence page and its linked subpages to get these numbers; it seems to me that's a pretty exhaustive analysis, and it quite refutes your supposition that the individual volume produced by Abd has been matched by the fact that there are more people on the "other side", thus presenting large amounts of material by numbers rather than volume, the data sure don't show any balance between the volume of material produced by Abd and his gang and the volume of material produced by everyone else. Keep in mind that when I say "everyone else" I don't just mean the people Abd considers his enemies, I mean everyone who has contributed text to the case, from Tony Sidaway to Mythdon to MastCell to Fritzpoll to Shell Kinney; I've included them all, and they still, taken altogether, don't begin to match the volume of text produced by these four people, or even by Abd all by himself. Woonpton (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has the time, it would be nice to know if there is any truth in the assertion that the volume of material is "mostly by Abd and his proponents"Okay, I took the time and analyzed the evidence in addition to the workshop page (except for the latest proposals added to the workshop, which wouldn't add anything significant to the proponderance of data since they are fairly sparsely commented so far) so now I can answer your question. The evidence and workshop of this case (excepting those few sections at the bottom of the workshop that I haven't counted yet) contain 1,157,202 characters of text. Of that, 794,948 was contributed by "Abd and his proponents" (although the proponents don't account for much of that; it's mostly Abd.) This represents 69% of the text, or to put it another way that I hope will make people understand what an imbalance this represents, "Abd and his proponents" have contributed more than twice as much text to this case as all other contributors combined. Carcharoth seems to think this isn't out of line with other cases, but it's even out of line with a recent case (Abd/Jzg) that was very similar to this one: Abd bringing charges against an administrator for acting while involved. In the earlier case, Abd's evidence comprised 4809 characters in a neat, easy to follow section which was no bigger than others of the 12 editors submitting evidence; in this one, Abd's evidence so far consists of 318,000 characters (and as I told Boris, I'm not entirely sure I got it all) sprawling over many many subpages. This is not a good trend. Woonpton (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Is massively disruptive
• Doesn't contribute anything of value
• Doesn't listen to warnings from either the arbcom or other users [170] (he considers bans to be "warnings" which he can disregard [171])
• Doesn't think he did anything wrong! [172]

Several people have proposed mentorships of varying levels of strictness. Mentorships are intended for generally good users who need coaching in one area or another. I am at a loss to see why people think a mentorship is appropriate in this case. Raul654 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that mentorship would be nearly as useless as the usual "advice" and "admonishments." Worse, it could be counterproductive; I've seen too many cases where the so-called mentor acted as a protector and enabler. My mentorship proposal was offered because that seemed to be the direction that Arbcom was going. If they insist on mentorship it should at least be under terms that offer the community some protection from the likelihood that Abd will cultivate a pliant mentor. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as Abd posting massive walls of text, I think a motion restricting him from posting anything over a certain length here for the rest of the case would go a long way. Isn't there supposed to be some kind of limit on how much stuff you can post in evidence anyways? Jtrainor (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Anon, 166.137.133.15, I would be interested in this methodology. Anon, does this include Abd's link pages, elsewhere? I suggest not including those.

Jtrainor, you are correct:

Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible.

One issue I brought up above, was User:Enric Naval's creating so many subsections, several sections are for one sentence only. If we want to restrict users verbage, someone should adress User:Enric Naval's confusing section too. Ikip (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)