| Revision as of 18:17, 20 July 2009 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →The cabal: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:48, 16 September 2009 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits make page history, pre-blanked page, and other case pages, more accessible | ||
| (168 intermediate revisions by 32 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| == Discussion on topic bans == | |||
| Admins ''can'' topic-ban individual editors without prior arbitration guidance, because I've done it. The most recent case is ], with the notification to the editor ]. Like site bans, topic bans are enacted when one admin places the ban and no other admin is willing to lift or reverse the ban. I placed the ban ''after'' a long discussion on the Admin noticeboard in which a ban was proposed and endorsed by multiple uninvolved editors and admins. In the case of Abd, Hipocrite, and ], the ban was placed ''first'', and then posted for discussion to the Admin noticeboard ], where it was broadly endorsed. It might have been better if WMC had himself posted the ban for review, but that does not invalidate the review itself. | |||
| {| id="mp-topbanner" style="width:100%; -moz-border-radius: 1em; background:#fcfcfc; border:1px solid #ccc; margin-bottom: 7px;" | |||
| If topic bans are not described in the current version of the banning policy, then that is a result of the fact that written policy often lags, rather than leads. New policies are sometimes developed by discussion first, then changing the written policy. But new policies are sometimes developed by editors and admins doing things that work, and that are broadly endorsed, and then eventually written into policy. It is telling that in neither the topic ban discussion for Grundle2600 referenced above, or for Abd and Hipocrite, did anyone (other than involved parties) argue that the ban was invalid because admins can't place such bans. ] 11:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | style="font-size:95%; text-align: center;" | | |||
| :The letter of policy currently indicates that topic bans by administrators can only be made in conjunction with an associated arbcom remedy - there actually was one in this case at Fringe science (I think), but which required the admin to warn the users first - this was explicitly rejected by WMC. By-and-large, I'm with you on this one: the individually-placed topic ban was endorsed by the community, so this could be viewed as moot, since we aren't beholden to procedures. I suspect Abd's contention will be that the AN/I discussion didn't really endorse it because it was filled with involved editors, but that is a matter for him. ] (]) 11:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This page has been ].<p> The version of this page before blanking is still available in the , and can be seen .<p> For the other pages in this case, including the ], please see:<p> ] <small>(])</small> — ] <small>(])</small> — ] <small>(])</small> — ] <small>(])</small> | |||
| ::Given, of course, that it was filled with "involved" editors because Abd requested that it be closed early. I would expect that at least some editors would have commented in Abd's defense, had it been allowed to continue. I think, under the circumstances, that we'll have to regard the ban as confirmed by the community, or at least agreed to by Abd. - ] (]) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::::Exactly. Also, I wanted to hear more opinions from uninvolved editors to make sure that uninvolved people agreed, and because I was interested on their outside assessments, and the early close prevented that. --] (]) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, which makes me feel that this request is less about the ban itself, so much as the technical/propriety issues surrounding it. I suppose the question is whether WMC acted properly in his administration of the ban, and who is administering the length of it, what the length is, etc. I don't know the answers to any of this by the way! ] (]) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What Thatcher said. I may present evidence on this if it becomes the focus of substantial attention in this case. Like Thatcher (and, I suspect, most admins active in resolving disputes and handling problem editing), I have unilaterally enacted a number of page and/or topic bans, generally with the proviso that they can be appealed to ] or other such venues. I've been doing it since at least 2007, and my sense is that they've generally worked out well.<p>In my view, a page/topic ban by an admin is actually a form of ''restraint'' rather than excessive authority. The alternative is a complete block from editing, which admins are of course permitted to employ. So if I say: "Rather than blocking you, just avoid these two pages and edit the other 2.5 million for the next few months"... that seems to me to be both a) more nuanced, b) more constructive, and c) less "authoritative" than blocking someone outright. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What Tatcher and MastCell say. IMHO, the banning policy page should be updated to fit reality. --] (]) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Refactoring. For the long winded version see . | |||
| : The issue at hand is whether administrators have the authority to ''unilaterally'' issue topic bans sans substantive discussion within appropriate venues and having duly arrived at a clear consensus. I argue that they do NOT have such powers. If administrator A declares a topic ban on editor B can we definitively say that editor B is now banned? Of course not. If a community discussion subsequently ensues that clearly shows community consensus ''against'' the ban, well then there is NO ban and we all know it. If on the other hand the consensus is clearly in favor of the ban, well then there IS a ban and we all know it. In both cases the existence of the ban was not established until AFTER the community discussion confirmed it one way or the other. | |||
| : The question in the case of Abd (and Jed Rothwell for those following along) is what was the true status of the purported ban between the time that administrator A declared it and when the community either confirmed or denied it's existence? Was editor B banned during that time or not? If you argue YES, then in effect you are claiming that administrators DO have the power to issue bans. If you argue NO, then in effect you are claiming that administrators DO NOT have the power to issue bans. | |||
| : An interesting case arises if the resulting community discussion show no consensus either way. In that case is editor B banned, or not? I should hope that the benefit of the doubt would go to the editor in this case simply because a clear consensus for a ban by the community failed to appear. --] (]) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </s> | |||
| Note that ] is in the middle of an edit war right now , so don't trust any particular version of it to be sane ] (]) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Edit war seems a bit strong in this case, there was a small consensus on the talk page for the edits made, but please anyone who is interested is welcome to . --] (]) 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::GoRight, if the important issue of this case is "''what was the true status of the purported ban between the time that administrator A declared it and when the community either confirmed or denied it's existence?''", then there is no case at all. The ban was imposed on June 6 and confirmed on June 12; between those dates Abd did not edit the article, edited the talk page only briefly and then stopped, and was not issued any blocks. Arbcom does not normally hear theoretical cases, and Arbcom does not make policy. Arbcom certainly will not issue a blanket policy over what to do in the future when admin A topic-bans editor B from article C. The correct course of action is to bring the ban up for discussion at the admins' noticeboard, and there is no need to edit to edit the article--no need not to respect the ban--during the discussion. If there is consensus for the ban, then so be it. If there is no consensus, then editor B can edit the article sure in the knowledge that another admin will unblock him if Admin A fails to respect the outcome of the discussion (and there will be no shortage of admins to contact based on that discussion, if there truly was no consensus to ban). Admin A's conduct could then come under scrutiny for acting without community consensus. But, Arbcom does not handle theoretical or hypothetical cases, Arbcom does not make the banning policy, and Arbcom decisions do not set precedent for future decisions. Finally, I submit as an axiom that any editor who can not stop editing an article for 48 hours while a ban is discussed deserves the ban. ] 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Understood. I am neither asking ArbCom to rule on hypothetical cases nor to write policy. Given the title of this section I had assumed that it was a general discussion on the issue of topic bans but in retrospect this appears not to be the case. As you can see the policy issue I am discussing above is being pursued on the policy page already. I shall simply strike my comment above as being not directly pertinent to this case and apologize for the confusion. --] (]) 02:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Since ] has brought up the topic of on-going work to improve ] and apparently wishes to during the course of this deliberation, let me simply make a few points in response: | |||
| ::::# I am not the only one that has . If making a single revert (my only edit to the page) to point ] to the discussion page where a small consensus had formed in favor of these changes and asking her to participate in that discussion rather than simply reverting the changes is a serious infraction, well then I guess I have to plead guilty as charged. | |||
| ::::# The evolution of the ] does not have to wait for the outcome of this deliberation in any way. Any changes made there are certainly not retroactive in their effect and so they cannot possibly affect the norms that were in effect at the time of WMC's actions. Ergo I do not believe that those discussions could even be pertinent here regardless of their content. | |||
| ::::# Finally and most importantly, the changes being discussed there are related to the distinction between indefinitely blocked users and community banned users. Since ] was neither indefinitely blocked nor community banned the changes in question have no material effect on this case. | |||
| :::: I submit that all of this should be perfectly obvious, which raises the question of ]'s motivation for even raising the issue here in the first place. I shall not render any opinions in that regard and shall trust impartial observers to come to their own conclusions. --] (]) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Impartial observers think you're a bit over dramatic. Topic bans are a useful (and more humane?) alternative to blocking, if someone gets around to writing this already existing practice down, it would probably go in ]. I think you may have a serious misunderstanding of policies - they are never retroactive since they are updated to describe changes already in practice, not to make up new rules (except in very rare cases). ] <sup>]</sup> 12:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion of admins editing protected pages == | |||
| There is nothing wrong ''a priori'' with admins editing protected pages. Under the normal course of events, editors who want an edit made will put the <nowiki>{{edit protected}}</nowiki> template on the talk page. This places the page in ] and any admin can review and make the edit. Some requests will be non-controversial, like fixing broken references or spelling errors. For controversial requests, the admin should look to the article talk page for a discussion and consensus on the edit. Maybe this approach is not used as much as it should be, it was more frequently used several years ago and I participated in several disputes that were resolved by protecting the page, discussing disputed content one piece at a time, negotiating language, and then making an <nowiki>{{edit protected}}</nowiki> request. The key things in this process are that the admin who makes the edit must not be involved in the dispute, or in other disputes with the same editors on other articles, and that disputed edits should not be made without consensus on the talk page from all sides of the dispute. | |||
| It doesn't really matter whether or not the <nowiki>{{edit protected}}</nowiki> template was used, as that is only a way to attract admin attention. And it is silly to argue that the admin who recognized the dispute and protected the article can not also enact edit requests; that admin probably watching the article anyway, and the assumption is that any admin who protects an article in a dispute will have been uninvolved in the dispute itself. However, it is important that any disputed edits enacted during protection reflect agreement of the parties involved in the dispute, and not the personal views of the admin making the edits. | |||
| The key questions, on which evidence has not yet been presented, are: | |||
| # Was WMC involved in a content dispute at ], or was he involved in dispute(s) with the parties at other article(s) (the parties seem to be Abd, Hipocrite, Coppertwig and GetLinkPrimitiveParams, are there others?) | |||
| # Did the edit WMC made reflect consensus among the disputing parties, or did it reflect his personal opinion on the subject. | |||
| -- ] 11:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : 1. No. 2. Neither (or at least, not that I checked). I was aware that the protected version was likely not good, though I hadn't checked. GoRight had suggested a different version. GR and I have for a long time been on different sides of the global warming wars, in which I've found that while he is usually wrong on the science and its interpretation, his arguments are often good. I decided I'd trust his judgement. So it amused me to change to his proposed version ] (]) 13:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::WMC altered the page to the revision suggested by GoRight. Since WMC and GoRight are generally at opposite ends of the spectrum on content issues, this strongly suggests that WMC was not motivated by a desire to enshrine his personal opinion on a protected page. Whether "amusement" is a suitable rationale is arguable, but seems less than criminal. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've added evidence on 2. There was no consensus on versions at the time of WMC's revert, and, I would argue, no likelihood of getting any soon. - ] (]) 06:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mastcell's comment seems a bit odd. WMC was either implementing consensus or else making the choice himself of how the article should be. He's clear that it was the latter. The fact that he doesn't seem to have had very good reasons (article currrent state probably poor but hadn't checked, GoRight in WMC's opinion has made good arguments in the past, WMC's amusement) doesn't change the fact that he was applying his own choice of how to shape the article by editing a protected page. That's an abuse of admin tools. As a one off it's not necessarily the end of the world but it would be reassuring if WMC were to indicate that in hidnsight he doesn't feel that his actions were appropriate and that he doesnt plan to act this way in future. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::With the polls going nowhere, GoRight's suggestion was to revert to the last stable version that predated the edit war, as per ]. It was a good idea, especially as Abd had been quite vocal that it was the wrong version that had been protected, and Hipocrite was in support. Given that, I'd read WMC's move as an impartial and reasonable approach, especially given how page protection was lifted a few hours later. Characterising the move as "editing" doesn't seem quite right. - ] (]) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Whomever is commenting on the IP address, would you mind logging in or creating an account for the purposes of this case? Doing so will help everyone involved here know what sort of background you're coming from on this case and will allow you to participate more fully in the case itself. Thank you. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::WMC was not familiar with cold fusion and had no POV there, and he implemented in good faith what looked like a good proposal in the talk page by someone familiar with the dispute. Also, his edit reverted to a prior stable version before people started editing frequently, meaning that he also undid one of ''my'' edits which I had to redo and also a wording improvement made by other editors so it's not like he targetted editors of one side or other. --] (]) 04:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::WMC is not alleged to have a POV on the topic of cold fusion. His involvement was in personal dispute with me, long-term and immediate. There was ongoing discussion of the version to revert to. There were two versions which had universal support among all expressed opinions. It was easy to see that from the polls. WMC, instead, chose a different version. It was chosen by GoRight, who also had no experience with the article, and looked at what seemed to be "stability." But that stability was illusory. Faced with dedicated edit warring from Hipocrite, repeated bald reversion of any attempt to improve the article in ways that conflicted with his uninformed POV, it had stalled. It was not stable. When an article is under protection, an admin is not to edit the article based on what looks to him like a "good" proposal, it would be an obligation to ask the editors before going ahead with that. It was actually a pretty poor proposal; I immediately added the version to the range poll -- which allows that kind of thing, that's one reason why range polls can be so useful, because they can be analyzed in many different ways -- and it got low ratings, comparatively. While we wouldn't send WMC to the firing squad for that reversion, after all, it did improve the article, but WMC directly and explicitly disregarded the expressed opinions of all editors who had commented except two, and one of those, GoRight had intended the proposal for discussion, not for immediate implementation. The other was Hipocrite, and of course he approved it, it was his preferred version, until his bald reversions of sourced text was confronted. WMC, as is all too common with him, served his own opinions, feelings, reactions, and impulses, and not consensus. --] (]) 15:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I find the idea that WMC is out to get you a bit far-fetched, and at odds with available evidence. For example, see ]. While Abd had clearly violated 3RR, WMC opted for page protection rather than a block. It seems to me that if WMC were actually motivated by animus toward Abd, or had a "long-term" personal dispute with him, then the outcome might presumably have been more adverse for Abd. It seems at least possible that he's simply calling them as he sees them. I may enter this into evidence, if there is a serious effort to convince the Committee that WMC has some sort of "long-term personal dispute" and prejudice against you - but so far I haven't seen any evidence presented to support that accusation, so I'll hold off. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == warnings and advices went beyond what I can present in the evidence page due to length problems == | |||
| Please notice that I had to cut short my evidence due to length problems. I have only explored about a fourth part of the messages left in Abd's talk page, the two RfAs, and a few pages. I haven't even looked in detail at the several pages of archives in ]. I have listed many warnings, criticism and advices given to Abd over many months ''before'' he started editing cold fusion, and I have listed only a minor fraction of those given to him ''after'' he started editing it. And I must have missed a few more that were left at other talk pages and probably a few more made at AN/ANI since he has commented often there. | |||
| So, arbs, if you want to take only in consideration what actually appears at the evidence page, then that's ok for me. However, you should keep in mind that Abd has been warned, criticized and advised ''many'' times by ''many'' editors of ''many'' different POVs over ''many'' months over several pages and topics, even beyond what I was able to present in the evidence page. --] (]) 08:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :If you want, you can create an evidence section in your usespace and link to it in your evidence section. If you do this, you can make the evidence as long as you want. The reason why we limit evidence sections is to stop the evidence page becoming overly convoluted - this stops becoming a problem if you use your userspace to present evidence. It can actually be just as effective as presenting evidence directly on the evidence page - I can assure you the arbitrators do actually read it. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 08:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::question: is my evidence short enough now? do I need to move stuff out to avoid refactoring or can I just leave it like this? --] (]) 09:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I've just done a count and it's over 1300 words still so it still needs some taking out. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 09:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I removed part of the evidence to ] in my userspace. Was that enough? --] (]) 17:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :One of the problems, Enric, is that if you and many other editors present evidence about Abd's behaviour, where is he expected to respond to that without breaching these limits himself (ditto for WMC)? This is one reason why limits are only enforced up to a certain point, and user subpages are a valid way to continue beyond that. There is also a concern about scope. Have a look at the Abd-JzG case for one that (from what I recall) managed to stay approximately within scope. In this case, Abd filed a motion to include Hipocrite and Mathsci (he later struck one of them). If there are good reasons to expand the scope of this case to include other actions of Abd (or indeed WMC), beyond what was mentioned in the request (mostly actions relating to cold fusion), then it would be better if someone filed a motion asking for the case scope to be defined (and expanded or narrowed). ] (]) 10:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be clear, is Abd's overall approach to dispute resolution (including Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution machinery) considered to be in-scope for this Arbitration? A casual reading of the evidence and workshop pages reveals a number of editors who are examining his history (up to and including his behaviour with respect to cold fusion) to establish whether or not an actionable pattern of (mis)conduct exists. Casliber's acceptance of this case explicitly mentions concerns over Abd's "pursuit of dispute resolution", at least two other Arbs specifically endorsed that acceptance. ](]) 14:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::My "approach to dispute resolution" is, my judgment, which is magnificently neutral, is that it is within scope. We have not been blessed with an explanation of specifically why WMC blocked me. He was asked, by an uninvolved editor, as evidence will show, and he later describes his response as flippant. So what ''was'' the reason? He's denied IAR, recently. In any case, if I ''guess'' at his reason, it would be how I was proceeding to resolve disputes at ]. Underneath that would be his general opinion, from plenty of prior contact, as to my general worth as an editor, including my understanding -- or alleged misunderstanding -- of ]. The initial relevance would be fairly narrow -- what do my very old RfAs have to do with this? -- but if I'm found to have violated policy or been disruptive, then evidence of other ''recent'' examples would be in order, and I suggest below how this might be approached. --] (]) 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse top|extended discussion of this by Abd}} | |||
| :::So some of what is being presented is relevant, but much of it is creating a laundry list. My behavior has changed over the years, and there are fewer "walls of text," but the impression remains. If I was disrupting Cold fusion by dominating the Talk page, whatever that would mean (how does one "dominate" if one does not edit war over discussion: if posts really are too long, they can be collapsed quickly, or archived or even deleted -- better if actually irrelevant?), then it would be on point. But if I made long responses in my second RfA, when my goal was simply to response fully and frankly -- with neither RfA was I actually seeking the tools, I was simply accepting a nomination that I did not seek, and I had nowhere near enough edits -- and nobody was obligated to read those responses, not even the closing bureaucrat, only those actually interested. I was aware that some were voting to oppose because of length, but most opposes were based on low edit count, with encouragement to come back when I had more experience, and I'd then see more support. Had my goal been adminship, I'd have been far more succinct. | |||
| :::In general, when you see walls of text from me, there is one of two conditions. Perhaps I'm simply discussing, in a non-polemic manner, the topic, which, with complex subjects, is often necessary to develop shared understandings, and even, for me, to develop my own understanding, both of the topic and the wikipolitical environment. There is a ready assumption many make that these long discussions are polemic; if they were it would be singularly stupid. When I simply discuss like that, convincing anyone who doesn't convince themselves by coming along for the ride, or investigate further, is not my goal. So when a reader goes over these discussions, looking for "the point," they are understandably frustrated. The "point" is understanding the topic, not promoting some particular POV. The other conditions is that I ''do'' have a conclusion in mind, a clear one, and I'm attempting to lay out the evidence for it. This kind of text will be much more dense, but there is still a severe limitation: writing good polemic takes a lot of time. If I'm still attempting to engage on a human level with editors, instead of going above them to the community at large, it can take quite a bit of text to lay out a clear case. However, when I'm not communicating so personally, when the issues have become so important that the extra work is warranted, I can be quite concise. I was blocked at the point when I'd shifted from extensive discussion to article action, and I'd met severe opposition from a faction of editors. | |||
| :::In general, I'd suggest arbitrations be separated into two phases, following standard legal practice: a procedure for finding fact on clearly specified claims, and then a separate phase where remedies are determined. The reason is that additional evidence may be required to determine appropriate remedies. Often this evidence is not actually supplied, it exists as general impressions among the arbitrators, which we see when an admin is charged with action while involved, and where some admins have been desysopped on quite the same charges, yet the admin is merely reprimanded. It's a judgment of the overall value of the editor. By "trying" both aspects at the same time, much additional evidence is presented which clouds the matter, or, in the alternative, much evidence is ''not'' presented that would be relevant to remedy but not to the original charges. --] (]) 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{collapse bottom}} | |||
| :::Where relevance is not clear to the clerks, I'd suggest the clerk ask the editor presenting evidence to show relevance to the circumstances of ''this'' case, i.e., the ban. There is a problem in the absence of specific charges justifying the ban from WMC, which then allowed various editors supporting the ban to supply their own reasons, which they would then proceed to give here. | |||
| :::ArbComm might consider requesting the clerks to be strict initially as to relevance, until proposed decisions on findings of fact have been reasonably settled, then the clerks would be asked to notify editors who have shown interest in the case that there are preliminary findings, and that evidence relevant to remedies would be in order. --] (]) 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@Carcharoth. OK, I understand that Abd is going to have a lot of issues to address, and that he will need the extra space. I made a motion to expand the scope of the case. --] (]) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| General Question: Is there a wiki provided tool for checking word counts? --] (]) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :], although meant for DYKs, will gives word count. Technically it won't work for an ''addition'' to a page, but you can always use a sandbox (or even Preview). ] (]) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found a word counter on the web, where you copied and pasted into a box. ] (]) 04:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Speaking just for myself, I have to say that I would prefer to have more evidence rather than less evidence, ''provided'' that the material is well-organized, reasonably described, and relevant to the issues in the case. I don't see how the arbitrators are benefitted if, for example, a user submitting evidence is forced by space limitations to write "see diffs 1 2 3" rather than "diff 1 reflects X, diff 2 reflects Y, diff 3 reflects Z". Length limitations are meant as general guidelines designed to avoid off-topic or rambling or excessive evidence, not as ends in themselves. IMHO, YMMV, and all. ] (]) 23:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notification suggested== | |||
| There is a convention, if not necessarily a policy, that editors being discussed as potential parties to dispute resolution should be notified of such. The editors listed at ] should be notified that they are being discussed here. A quick check show that many (most?) have not been notified. ] (]) 14:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == The cabal == | |||
| Abd asserts the existence of a cabal, going so far as to list names (). Cabal membership is determined, apparently, by disagreement with Abd. In any case, when I view this list, I see a wide range of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, many of whom have few overlapping areas of agreement or even interaction. They seem united mostly in their belief that Abd's approach to Misplaced Pages is problematic. I think this evidence actually speaks quite loudly, though perhaps not to the point initially intended. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:48, 16 September 2009
|
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. The version of this page before blanking is still available in the page history, and can be seen here. For the other pages in this case, including the final decision, please see: Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) |