User talk:Abd

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

Notice to IP and newly-registered editors

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

WELCOME TO Abd TALK

Before reading User talk:Abd

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

After reading User talk:Abd

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

Caution is advised.

Offering you the same as I have WMC

See this discussion for details.

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

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

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Wikiproject Essay

Hello, Abd. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Essay_Categorization_and/or_Classification#Getting_this_project_going.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Abd-William M. Connolley

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

ban remainder reminder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Typo :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email to me has been bouncing or is lost

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Red Cross Merges...

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

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

Just want to congratulate you

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

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

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

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

WP:HOUND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration Enforcement Request

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

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

Smaller majorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barnstar of Wisdom

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

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

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

"originating party to the dispute"

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

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

The ban was amended to state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

Dispute with Future Perfect

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please delete your subpage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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