| Revision as of 14:27, 1 September 2009 editHersfold (talk | contribs)33,142 edits →Is the 1000 word limit real?: reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:48, 16 September 2009 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,560 edits make page history, pre-blanked page, and other case pages, more accessible | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 12 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) | |||
| I think this ought to be considered OK: | |||
| *A: I'm thinking of blocking you for editwarring, but I won't if you'll agree not to edit this page for 2 days. | |||
| *B: I don't agree not to edit this page for 2 days. | |||
| *A: Then I'm sorry: I'm blocking you for your recent editwarring. | |||
| I think this ought not to be considered OK: | |||
| *A: I'm thinking of blocking you for editwarring, but I won't if you'll agree not to edit this page for 2 days. | |||
| *B: (doesn't answer) | |||
| *(nothing happens for 24 hours; then B does a harmless or productive edit, which is not a revert, to the page,) | |||
| *A: I'm blocking you for not complying with my request not to edit the page for 2 days. | |||
| Admins can use blocks to enforce existing rules, but I think it would be dangerous to give admins broad freedom to invent new rules applying only to specific editors. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 00:03, 22 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) | |||
| :::::::::I've claimed involvement, not malice, MastCell. Yes, WMC had an opportunity to block me then; he later said that he should have, but he seems to have thought that my signature to an article edit was a sign that it was simply a slip. When I said, no, the signature was an error, then he would have had what he thought was a clear 4RR, and he'd have blocked. I've already presented evidence for long-term dispute. Have you read the ? It was just what I could quickly compile for the Request, but the most important dispute in this case was an immediate content dispute, plus his long-standing opinion that I was useless and a drag on the community, expressed before. I haven't charged that WMC was actively pursuing an agenda with me, but only that his prior opinions and positions, including his personal feelings about claims I'd made about his prior actions while involved, would reasonably be expected to bias his decisions, and that, if he understands recusal policy -- he may not -- he shouldn't have been the one to either ban or block me. And ''even if I was wrong about prior events,'' my objections should have been enough for him to then recuse, and this is a point which ArbComm should confirm, I should make sure that there is a proposed declaration of principles on that. --] (]) 23:46, 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) | |||
| :Thanks, Newyorkbrad. I'm using hypertext to organize my evidence, with the most important stuff at the top level. I've generally preferred not to present lists of raw diffs without text that gives them context and explanation, or, at least, the dates, links, and edit summaries or other relevant information (such as page edited, etc.) Definitely, some of what I'm doing is experimental, but, I've found, it makes it easy to stay within the text limits on the actual page, yet I don't have to actually eliminate anything, I merely deprecate it in importance or necessity for understanding. The alternative of using user subpages is no more efficient, in fact, and possibly less so, so maybe this trick of linking to history will catch on. I did warn editors I'd be doing this, so that if they want to refer to specific text that was transient on my evidence page, they should use permanent links, but it should be clear that, when the smoke clears, all the text below the actual Evidence page has been refactored and placed in context, to link directly to it after that point would be, possibly, presenting a biased view as to my ultimate conclusions. (I.e., to just link to the cabal subpage instead of the top level page which repeats the qualification about listing not being an accusation of "cabal membership," in a way very difficult to miss, before the reader comes to the subtext link. If I'm going to "accuse" someone, it will be on the top level.) --] (]) 23:05, 20 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) | |||
| :Boris asked here, but went ahead and notified them without waiting for a reply. See the section below about canvassing. They were not notified because their mere presence on a list of editors who took actions that, isolated, were no impeachment or accusation or charge of involvement, was not sufficient to justify notification. It's only technically "mention." Unlike the Queen in Wonderland, trial first, verdict later, i.e., I don't make accusations until I am clear on the evidence; I have general impressions, to be sure, and a few comments in odd places have been made based on this, but you might notice that, so far, no editors have been named as members of the cabal I assert effectively exists. And presence on two of three lists isn't adequate to make the claim I'm making, it would be suicidal for me to make that claim if there isn't much stronger evidence than that. Further, "membership" in a virtual cabal is no offense at all, in itself, though participation in actions that are contrary to policy could be. For example, if there is a cabal functioning at ] (anyone suspect that?), a new editor who has an inconvenient POV may be serially reverted. Each member makes only one revert, or in rare circumstances, when short-handed, two, and the hapless interloper is easily disposed of, perhaps sputtering, with his last wikiwords about "cabal," and with all the "cooperating editors" laughing about how foolish that is. When this happens over and over, it starts to be a problem that could possibly be addressed. --] (]) 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: ''Boris asked here, but went ahead and notified them without waiting for a reply'' - no, Boris didn't ask. Read his words again ] (]) 09:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've been out-wikilawyered. WMC is correct, he didn't "ask." Rather, read the section head. He "suggested." Not exactly asking, but it does imply that the one suggesting will wait for a response before going ahead. It's moot now, isn't it? --] (]) 16:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The point is, Boris wasn't here to get your opinion, nor to await your approval. He was ''notifying'' you of his intent to inform all of the people you accused of being in the cabal, not asking you for permission. In the future, perhaps you should be more careful of whom you slander on these pages, because nobody here is going to keep it a secret. ] (]) 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks, Raul, every comment you make seems to make my case easier. Please continue, it's possible that I could do nothing at this point and it would all be resolved most excellently.... If this was a notice, why was it titled as a suggestion? And I have, so far, accused nobody of being in the cabal, at least not in the evidence, to my recollection. So your statement is verifiably false and this may become part of the evidence I present, at least at some level, showing how ABF and carelessness penetrate and soak your comments and, indeed, your work. | |||
| :::::(I'm still not sure as to how relevant the "cabal" stuff is; I know there is relevant cabal or associated activity for a piece of this, which is why I started the presentation. On WMC Talk, I've suggested a name for the cabal, the KCC, ] cabal, because, if it were an organized conspiracy -- I wouldn't call it that at all -- it would be an extraordinarily bumbling and incompetent one. A disciplined cabal would never allow the disruption and comedy that has appeared here, there would be a few, apparently cogent and neutral editors, the most skilled, or fed material off-wiki by those who are, who would make focused and devastating presentations of evidence (warped as needed for polemic effect, if the cabal is a malicious one). Perhaps I'm, unconsciously or otherwise, a member of the TMC. True Majority Cabal. Talk about unorganized, this one is totally pathetic! The KCC has it far more together, that's why it's dangerous. But we might fix that.) --] (]) 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::''Thanks, Raul, every comment you make seems to make my case easier. '' -- right back at you Abd, I feel the same way about every edit you make. | |||
| ::::::''Please continue, it's possible that I could do nothing at this point and it would all be resolved most excellently'' - Then by all means, feel free to sit back and let this case take its natural course. I'm sure you'll get all that you have coming to you. | |||
| ::::::''If this was a notice, why was it titled as a suggestion'' - because he didn't want to do the notification himself -- he was soliciting someone else to do it, as the content of his subsequent post (assuming you read it) makes clear. | |||
| ::::::''And I have, so far, accused nobody of being in the cabal, at least not in the evidence, to my recollection.'' - gee, I suppose Boris made up that list of names? This is where you apply your wikilawyering skills to claim you never called them a cabal. I'll tell you what - let's pretend you made that argument, and I rejected it as the arrant nonsense that it is. That way, we can save two lengthy steps of this thread. | |||
| ::::::''So your statement is verifiably false and this may become part of the evidence I present, at least at some level, showing how ABF and carelessness penetrate and soak your comments and, indeed, your work.'' - by all means, feel free to add it to the "evidence" you have compiled. ] (]) 18:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Can we agree, then, that this is a good case for ArbComm? Disagreement, two or more parties each thinking that the same evidence is -- or will be -- plain, but with quite different conclusions, that's a pretty deep disagreement, which is why I concluded that RfAr was necessary and that it was a waste of time and unnecessarily disruptive to pursue this below ArbComm. | |||
| ::::::Again, can we agree that the project will benefit by a resolution of this? --] (]) 21:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I suppose that depends on what resolution the arbcom decides upon. I can personally think of only one way to resolve this to the benefit of the project, and I've already proposed that solution on the workshop. ] (]) 22:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Perhaps it's an excellent quality of yours, Raul, that you are frank. However, it seems we do have a difference of approach here. I want the issues settled, and consider it a benefit to the project -- or to me --, whatever the outcome, if the issues are addressed, to me, the only failure would be .... nothing, and thus continued disruption. I'm not convinced that I'm always right. If I'm wrong, I want to learn, and, indeed, once we are adults, being wrong is probably the fastest way to learn, if we can admit error. I'm assertive, and many mistake this for attachment. Being assertive, sticking my foot in my mouth, is a highly efficient and effective learning method for me. I'm getting that error and misinterpretation aren't active possibilities for you, Raul. That could be the problem here. | |||
| ::::::::I will accept the decision of ArbComm, regardless, excepting the highly unlikely possibility of an appeal to Jimbo. That is, I will respect the community and its processes, and community consensus as reflected in ArbComm. Period. My trust in consensus, when it has an opportunity to form, based on information and careful deliberation, is almost absolute. Even if it tells me I'm full of it. --] (]) 00:26, 22 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) | |||
| :'''Query to clerks re: the above:''' Is it normal to present evidence by adding it to the page, reverting it, and then making a pointer to the reverted version? This makes it awkward to evaluate the evidence in context because (a) one cannot simply do a search on the Evidence page for names or keywords and (b) having the evidence on a separate page makes it hard to evaluate evidence in context, because one is looking at two different versions of a page. I would prefer that the Evidence page be self-contained (with the obvious exception of historical diffs to material originally added on other pages). In the end the Evidence page is for the use of the arbs, so if they're OK with this practice I won't object further. ] (]) 18:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The use of user or other subpages for complex evidence is routine. This is merely a variation that's economic on space and the proliferation of pages. I used it in the Request itself, no complaints. Boris, by the way, has been known to uncollapse text that had been collapsed to provide for a layer of significance, which can greatly improve communication and understanding, he did it with my comments on one of the AN/I star chamber hearings, and then complained about the "wall of text". I thought that was truly funny. We should keep him around. MastCell, of course, I'd agree with you as to how it "seems." Given that the evidence presented doesn't claim "cabal membership" for ''anyone,'' but merely begins to present a picture that, when complete, would have to have much more substance than exists at this point, I'd say that your comment was a tad premature. Don't you think you should wait until I actually present conclusions before imagining you know what they are? --] (]) 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think you should come to the point, if any. --] (]) 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thanks, Stephan. I plan to. It takes time. What's the hurry? Until ''something'' happens here, I'm self-banning from ] to avoid disruption, and WMC gets to continue as he chooses, though he might be wise to be a ''tad'' more careful, so, where is the beef? Are you worried? About what? --] (]) 00:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::"what's the hurry?" - are you effin' joking? You've filed a case, bloody well present it and please do so now, immediately. If time was needed, you should have taken it ''before'' dropping the gauntlet. The "before-time" was when you had choices, now it's just a matter of getting on with it. Abd, this was all your choice right up until you dropped the writ. Now it's a process, and it's not for you to scuff your feet and ask why others are so impatient. Prosecutor, please prosecute. Now. Otherwise, we shall petition for summary dismissal, to use the legalese. ] (]) 08:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, I'm not "effing joking." You want to "petition for summary dismissal," you are welcome, I suppose, but ArbComm would be quite unlikely to accept it. Note that I wasn't the one asking for the delay, it was an adverse party. A plaintiff in a legal case files it, timely, and is not expected to have all the evidence and briefs ready at the time of filing; indeed, until the case is accepted, wouldn't it be preposterous to demand that all that work be done when it might be totally useless? There is no fixed time for an arbitration to take; the only one, as far as I can see, who is "suffering" a "harm," pending, is me, because until there is some resolution, I'm self-banned from ] because it could be disruptive to make even a harmless edit there -- even though my "community ban" has expired, clearly. If it helps Enric to have time to prepare his evidence, all the better, and the same is true for the rest of the community. If those opposed to my work smell the coffee, they might actually make their case stronger by finding some internal consensus as to what of the laundry list on the evidence page to remove, and what comments to strike here. I see not one bit of harm from delay at this point. Nobody has been accused of being a member of a cabal, the evidence shown so far is just that: raw, primary source, with no conclusions. If someone is worried about that, they should have already been worried, since the history is there and will be there forever, or at least for some duration! I suppose that WMC could have said that he was worried about a "cloud hanging over his head," but he apparently is fine with delay. What this case is showing, clearly, is the presence among us of editors who haven't the foggiest idea about how to seek consensus in the face of dispute, and instead they toss gasoline on the smouldering coals. I have not "dropped" anything. What's truly happening is that for a day or so I've been distracted by all these effing comments like the one above. I need to turn from that, truly, and, indeed, get on with it. --] (]) 18:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Abd, from my perspective, it's "premature" to imply that a few dozen assorted editors are members of a cabal unless you've actually developed some evidence to support that claim. When you title a section "There is a cabal", and then list 30 usernames, any sensible reader will conclude that you are naming the members of that cabal. You're free to do what you like, but I would flip your final question around: don't you think you have a responsibility to actually think through and develop your evidence ''before'' posting a list of names under the heading "There is a cabal"? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Any sensible reader would conclude that if they don't read the actual text, but only the headline and the list of names! That's why a more mature version has the disclaimers in bold, to make them harder to miss. Each list, MastCell, described exactly what the list was. Why would you assume that an editor was a "member of the cabal" just because they were on one list, or even more than one? I don't make that assumption, I didn't state it, nor did I intend it. But, yes, this is actually an ] problem, I tend to assume that others think like me, and, quite often, they don't. It's difficult to overcome, I stick my foot in my mouth all the time because I don't anticipate the responses of others to meanings I don't intend, unless I spend so much time reviewing the text and reflecting on it and consulting others that it would never get done. (Happens in person with speech, also, and if I were to fully attempt to avoid it, the consequence would be that I'd be unable to say anything.) By the way, is there a dead horse being beaten here? I don't know, but it's starting to smell like it. I'm going to go do something else! --] (]) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :What a wonderful idea, Abd. | |||
| :Boris, sorry I haven't answered your question until now. Use of user subpages for posting of over-length and/or complicated evidence is routine and permitted; posting it to the evidence page, reverting it, and then linking a diff as you mention is rather unusual, and possibly bending the guidelines somewhat. Unless the Arbitrators have an issue with it (which I will check, although they haven't mentioned anything as yet), in the end it's not terribly different from the subpage thing, so probably not worth worrying about, especially when there are more pressing issues to attend to. Thanks for asking, though, and again, sorry for the delay. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::As a member of the alleged cabal, and interested onlooker, i'd like to notice that the revert/link-diff makes it impossible to search, and impossible to tell if anything had been changed - without going through page history. That ''is'' a problem. --] (]) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Seconded. --] (]) 23:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Eldereft = 2over0 (2/0) == | |||
| I back at the end of April, and signed using both for a few weeks. I keep both cold fusion related articles and global warming related articles on the periphery of my watchlist, but neither recall nor care to check just now whether I have had any interactions impinging on this case in the last three months. Neither name occurs on the present ''Evidence'' page, but my old one was mentioned (thank you for the notification, SBHB). - ] (formerly Eldereft) <small>(])</small> 18:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Eldereft, it looks like you did not take the bait. See the section I created below about the canvassing, which is what it was. You appeared on one list in my evidence, and you were probably included in the list because of your endorsement of ], which, by itself, means very, very little. Unless you also argued strenuously before ArbComm in certain RfArs that would be diagnostic of strong position on the relevant issues, and which I have not yet presented evidence regarding, nor do I have it memorized, this means absolutely nothing, and it was outrageous that you were notified as you were, implying that you were named as a member of a cabal. --] (]) 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is not inappropriate (IOW, not canvassing) for someone mentioned in evidence to be notified of that mentioning. The notifications given out were not unduly biased, simply to the effect of "you've been mentioned, here's where, and here's in what context." That is within policy. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: For what it is worth, I have been keeping half an eye on this case since a day or two after the request opened. | |||
| ::: Abd - if it is not too much trouble, would you be willing to use my new username? It helps establish my unified wiki-identity and makes clear the context for any comments I may make here or in any future interactions with editors who know me only from here. Noting the rename wherever to omit it might otherwise cause confusion is, of course, perfectly appropriate. - ] <small>(])</small> 06:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Canvassing by Short Brigade Harvester Boris? == | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.'' <!-- from Template:Archive top--> | |||
| ---- | |||
| In my , the following disclaimer is made: | |||
| :'''No implication is intended that merely by being listed in the evidence, an editor is involved in this arbitration.''' Where I find it necessary, as this proceeds, to claim involvement here, I will do so specifically and directly and if the editor has not already been notified, provide that notification. | |||
| In the hypertext, the earlier complete subsection, this was present: | |||
| :'''No claim is made that these editors are engaging in meat puppetry, colluding, or that they were incorrect to !vote as they did''' | |||
| and there were other qualifying cautions. | |||
| I notice that ], who did appear on two of the three lists so far, and who is known to work in close cooperation with WMC and Raul654, but who had, thus far, not commented in this RfAr, notified editors mentioned on the lists, not merely of mention in the RfAr, which would be problem enough, but presenting the mention in a way more likely to cause it to be misinterpreted, instead of pointing to the present section and explaining that the mention of their names is found underneath, so the editor is more likely to see the less-qualified version first. Because these lists were, by definition, lists of editors who might be more likely to hold a particular point of view on the issues before ArbComm at this time, this was canvassing that was inflammatory and not neutral; SBHB should, at least, be warned. Note that there have been a series of violations of RfAr protocol, such as edit warring in the original request and later reverts by possibly involved parties, but this is what a "virtual cabal" can accomplish, a series of editors can collectively take actions that, if repeated by one editor, would result in blocks. | |||
| In spite of repeated assurances by clerks that more violations here would be met with blocks, they continued, and each one, in turn, met with a warning. | |||
| Personally, I have little serious problem with canvassing regarding an ArbComm case, but it should simply be noted that the comments of editors who were canvassed with biased notices may require special attention and care, and that would be especially true here, where the canvassing was not only to a select group of editors, but where their involvement by virtue of being listed was specifically denied, yet the notice de-emphasized that. | |||
| For the notifications, see: | |||
| What's remarkable about this list is that the names of those notifed are the names from the original lists where, if I were presented with the list represented in these diffs, and were asked, "Do you suspect these editors of being effectively cabal members?", I would have said, "Not clearly, some of the names are familiar, some are clearly not involved, such as ]." Whereas the names of editors whom I do, in fact, suspect, and strongly, are missing. I haven't checked, because I'm guessing that they have already commented, except for SBHB, of course. He did notify himself. So this is clearly an attempt to stir up resentment at allegedly being accused of being members of a cabal. Given that some editors don't read carefully, I'd expect it to work to some degree. Clever, but probably not clever enough. An RfAr is not a noticeboard or an RfC, where pile-in can have devastating effects, ArbComm is far more sophisticated and sober and careful. --] (]) 22:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Nonsense. As Boris has pointed out, it's customary to notify editors under discussion. If you don't wish to discuss them, don't include them in the first place.If you mention them, they should know that. And since you yourself said that the way to deal with your textual output is to ignore it, you shouldn't be surprised if people do just that and ignore your ever-changing explanations and remarks. --] (]) 23:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, the clerks will decide what's nonsense and what is not. "Mention" is not the same as "discussion." I'm not aware that anything I put there, in that section, with the lists presented, which were raw evidence, unfiltered, pure analysis, was "discussion" of any editors. I'm preparing evidence for an active ArbComm case, and I can continue to do that, refactoring, until I'm told not to. This isn't a discussion, on the Evidence page, and I assume that most arbitrators don't read much here until they are ready to review the case. That's how I'd do it, why follow this endless mishegas until it settles, the sock comments have been taken out, editors who have realized that they were mooning the ] have refactored, etc, and the evidence is as complete as it is going to get? | |||
| ::On the other hand, if there were any errors there, as I've always asked, I'd appreciate knowing. The first list was one of editors who, according to the evidence file I prepared for an RfC, and which was supported by an impressive list of editors, had revert warred (possibly with only one revert) with GoRight, and who then commented negatively in GoRight's RfC. That's all. That's not a crime, and, as has been pointed out, maybe these are just the smart editors, and, of course, great minds think alike. Right? --] (]) 23:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :(after e/c) And as a notified editor, I agree: nonsense. Abd, you really should drop the habit of spreading innuendo under the guise of "careful documentation". ''And'' the habit of placing the text you want, then reverting it oh so innocently, so that the people who read it must have ''wanted'' to read it. You seem to be on a mission to poke and prod at every single weak spot you see, perhaps in an effort to effect a crisis so that the system can be reformed in the direction you desire. That's just my own take on things, but I don't see your actions as being helpful. I suppose that will put me on one of your lists for "further consideration". ] (]) 23:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::So, if I may summarize: it is totally appropriate for Abd to list names under the heading "There Is A Cabal". However, anyone ''informing'' these "cabalists" that they're being discussed in an active Arbitration case is "canvassing". I tend to proceed from the assumption that if I were being mentioned in an ArbCom case, particularly in the context of a "cabal", I'd appreciate the courtesy of being informed. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 23:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm consistently amazed how we have highly experienced editors and administrators who aren't able to distinguish between what sources actually say and what can be synthesized from them. Yes, there is a cabal, I assert. So how would we recognize it? Here, take a look at these lists, then take a look at some more lists. Notice how, in spite of the fact that we have millions of registered editors, thousands of them active, and hundreds of active administrators, the same names keep showing up? A name appearing on one list or two, means nothing. A name that is on a dozen lists, compiled in a clear way, to show consistent POV and action, could mean something quite different. You looked at the first few scenes in the movie and jumped to conclusions about the rest of it. I can understand that, and I can easily consider that presentation, in that manner, an error. I'm not perfect, if I was, my evidence section would drop, full-blown and perfectly designed for maximum impression, all in one edit. | |||
| :::However, I explicitly disclaimed that presence on those lists was any kind of accusation at all, but just a presentation of what is in page history, ''without'' accusation. And that this was ignored in favor of imputation from the stated purpose of examining the lists shows one common problem on Misplaced Pages: editors who don't read with AGF and caution. I'm ''building'' evidence pages, and doing it in the open. I have some strong impressions, but if I can't establish them sufficiently, you will see the cabal claim disappear; there is still some relevance to that evidence, because some of those editors were clearly "involved," which becomes important in considering the community ban at AN/I, as to substance. | |||
| :::(I am ''not'' challenging that ban, it's now moot, it's expired. But it may be raised as some kind of proof of my misbehavior, when, in fact, it was more of the same-old same-old pile-on, and it proved to me that RfAr was going to be necessary, and therefore continuing to contest it there was a waste of time. I am ''not'' an SPA, devastated at the idea that I might not be able to edit my favorite article for a month. That editing may be valuable, but not necessarily compared to the time of other editors diverted from creating or maintaining other content, to contentious discussion that can't result in settled consensus.) --] (]) 00:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm sick of your hedging and innuendo. Maybe you don't realize what you are doing, or maybe this is an artistic happening and we are part of the installation. But just for demonstration of the technique: I could call you a useless and disruptive bag of hot air. Of course I don't but I could, and I might be right. I could be wrong, too, but really, I think I could be right. Other editors can evaluate these statements, maybe they to would come to the conclusion that you are a useless and disruptive bag of hot air. I mean, there is evidence pointing that way, or at least that an impression I might get. --] (]) 00:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Tempting. I ''could'' call an editor something that would get me blocked for incivility, and I might even be right, but I won't. I don't make charges that I don't believe I can prove, and I know nothing about your personal life, Stephan, nor is it relevant here. It happens frequently that, because of the missing cues in raw text, comments are misread and meanings interpreted that were not intended, there is a crackerjack example in the reference of Jimbo to "toxic personalities" on Misplaced Pages when he was discussing his block of a certain administrator in may. When he was challenged on that, he made it clear that this was not a reference to the administrator, and a careful reading of the original shows that his claim is consistent with it. But why bother with careful readings when it's much more fun to complain about his "insult" of her? Sad case, actually. Currently at RfAr, last I looked. --] (]) 00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :(ec)Abd's disclaimer notwithstanding, there's nothing that prevents the arbcomm from looking at the behaviour of editors, even if they are not (initially) parties. After all, ]'s complaint about the date delinking case was something along the line that he wasn't given adequate notice that his behaviour was being considered. It's only proper to notify people that their behaviour is being discussed - be it at ANI, at WQA, or even here. | |||
| :As for the issue of canvassing - RFAr is not a vote, or even a !vote. Heck - it's not even a discussion. The problem with canvassing is that it skews votes. Come on - that's taking wikilawyering to a new level. ] (]) 23:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Fine, Guettarda, that's why I said "I haven't any serious problem with canvassing." However, creating a bias in a large list of editors by how a notice is worded, asking here for comment on whether to notify or not, then not waiting, is at least questionable. I didn't "discuss" these editors yet, and many of them -- and possibly all of those whom SBHB notifed, would not have been listed again, and ultimately those lists would have been buried as many as two levels deed, primary sources, not discussion at all. The only conclusions presented about the editors on those lists were made by others, imagining what I supposedly intended. The section header was a call to start looking for something, and primary evidence was being presented, for those who wanted to follow the picture as it appeared. If I was going to list all those editors who called for me to be banned on a certain page, I had to list them all, not select out just those editors based on some conclusion about cabal membership. That would be backwards. | |||
| ::In any case, Guettarda, you are correct, it's not a discussion. Does this mean that it's okay for me to go out and notify those who have opposed the "cabal" previously and notify them of this RfAr, either on or off-wiki? Those previous discussions, I only reported editors on one "side." I could expand those lists to show both sides, and then notify them that they are "mentioned." I'd like to know. Seriously. Some of them may have important evidence to provide. Please respond soon. | |||
| ::What wikilawyering? I'm not attached to any outcome here, and I haven't presented wikilawyering arguments, even though you might disagree with my conclusions. Please be specific. I will mention, however, that I became aware of the notices because another editor, in good standing, emailed me about them, calling them "canvassing," so it wasn't just my own opinion. It still could be incorrect! --] (]) 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(ec)Agree with MastCell on all points: the list of names under the heading "There is a cabal" certainly appeared to be a list of cabal members, and if I had been on the list, or had been mentioned in ''any'' way as part of the evidence given in a case before Arbcom, I certainly would have expected to be notified, most appropriately by the mentioner, but if not, at least by someone. As for the idea that the reaction to the list under "there is a cabal" was premature, people usually read and respond to evidence as it is posted; if Abd didn't mean for his initial evidence to be responded to as evidence, he should have flagged it with a warning at the top that this isn't really evidence, it's just building up to evidence that will be presented eventually. It still seems a very odd way of doing things, but at least people would have been on notice not to pay any attention to Abd's evidence section until he was finished stowing insignificant layers below deck.] (]) 00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Woonpton seems to think of the project page as a discussion. My "premature" comment was specifically to one editor when I made it. We don't really "respond" to evidence, except by presentation of other necessary evidence, and I'm not responding to plenty of evidence until there is a showing that it's material. I can understand the reaction, but once the qualifications and reservations and disclaimers are noticed, that reaction should disappear. It hasn't. Those lists were objective compilations, very close to primary source, not interpreted yet. And that was clear. Woonpton, I did what you just suggested I do. Perhaps it should have been in blinking text. At one point, I put one of the disclaimers in italics, it should have been in bold. Please remember something. The evidence is being prepared for ArbComm, not for the community as such. This isn't a discussion, the evidence page is just that, and editors are free to redact and change evidence as they see fit, until it's as ready for review as they consider possible, and we can do that in response to what develops as being important. We can't normally do that in a discussion, because one response is based on the previous one. Quite deliberately, we don't discuss on the Evidence page, though people do sometimes present evidence in response to other evidence presented; arguing against the implications in evidence of others is probably an error, though. Rather, as we do in articles, one would present contrary evidence, if it exists. There may be another view, which is that the opinions of editors, whether or not supported by diffs or references, is a kind of evidence by itself. There is a different kind of text on the Workshop page, where it gets closer to discussion, but even there, proposals morph even while being discussed, redacted by the proposer. --] (]) 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What MastCell has written seems quite correct. Abd should be far more careful what he writes. Take this recent post on his talk page. In it Abd writes: "Doesn't it worry you that you are aligned with an editor like Mathsci, who is quite like ScienceApologist in certain ways, only worse? You have jumped on board a sinking ship, Enric, and, yes, given your energy before ArbComm, you could indeed be sanctioned." ] (]) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''The following statement is <u>not</u> intended as a list of people who steal things, merely as an examination of who might be a thief'': | |||
| ::::*Abd steals chewing gum from his local variety store. | |||
| ::::Therefore I deduce the existence of a cabal of thievery. Of course, I could be wrong and those mentioned can present evidence to refute this notion. If such evidence exists. And of course, we should examine this evidence closely to determine the motives of the attestor. | |||
| ::::Sorry to resort to parody Abd. You're arguing from negatives and the only out seems to be to accept that you were right all along. ] (]) 01:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Strictly speaking this is not a reasonable comparison. Abd's lists were objectively compiled from verifiable edit histories, not totally unfounded statements. As Abd has pointed out, if he has somehow made a mistake on any of the lists, please point out where and he will be happy to correct it. This is not a point to argue about, actually, it is purely objective. --] (]) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| On looking more closely it does appear that I did link to the wrong subsection; it should have been . There were headings, subheadings and sub-subheadings with short bits of intervening text and I got mixed up. I apologize for the screwup and will be careful to link the appropriate subheading when notifying the rest of the editors mentioned there. ] (]) 01:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ecx2)Abd, this morning when I checked my watchlist, I saw that you had edited a section on the evidence page named "There is a cabal." Intrigued, I clicked on the arrow pointing to the section, and is what I saw; it was the version of 03:53 June 20 that I saw. No disclaimers, no explanation of your intention to redact the information later, just a discussion of how you define the term "cabal" and then under it three lists of people that it seemed reasonable to infer that you were naming as members of a cabal; there is nothing in the text I saw that would suggest otherwise. A check of the history shows that you added the disclaimer that being included on a list was not an accusation that the person was a member of a cabal at 13 hours later, at the time you moved that section off the main page and into your understory of evidence. I assume that during that thirteen hours, several people, as I did, saw the lists before the disclaimer was added, and it's not helpful to suggest that we simply ignored an obvious disclaimer. In looking at the history, I see that you did mention in the edit summary, when you added the lists, that membership on a list didn't necessarily mean anything, but I didn't see that edit summary until I started looking at the history to see when you had added the disclaimer. You need to understand that when you edit so frequently, most people are not going to see every edit summary, unless they are glued to their watchlist to see every single change come through, and most of us aren't quite that attached to our watchlists. | |||
| :::I stand by my earlier statement that if I were mentioned on the evidence page of an Arbcom case in *any* context, I would want to be notified of it. If you want to mention people but not have them notified, then you should keep those lists in your user space, not put them up on the ArbCom evidence page, even if you mean to revert them some time later. | |||
| :::As to the question of whether an ArbCom case is a discussion, no, I don't think it's a discussion exactly, but neither do I think it's a private conversation between the filer of the case and ArbCom, in which comments from others are considered an unwelcome nuisance. ArbCom cases are open so people can contribute information they think may be useful to ArbCom, call attention to misinformation, comment where comment seems appropriate (to the commentor, not to the filer) and so forth. If it were not expected that people will respond to evidence that's being posted, there wouldn't be a talk page for the Evidence page.] (]) 01:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In case it goes unnoticed, I've commented above that I do not believe the notices given around to be canvassing. They appeared to be largely neutral in nature, and aside from a few accidential mislinks as noted by SBHB, were accurate in notifying the users of their mentioning in the evidence. This is no different from making someone aware of their being mentioned in a discussion on ANI. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 01:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It occurs to me that if we were all part of any sort of even halfway-competent cabal, we wouldn't have needed to be notified by Boris. I find it shameful and embarrassing to be part of such a woefully inefficient conglomerate. ](]) 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I disagree. It occurred to me at the time that Boris brought this up that it was a clever way for him to notify the Cabal while evading the ] restrictions AND providing a plausible explanation of the sudden influx of the very Cabal members that have been so notified. It is also a good example of how a secret conspiracy is not required to have a group who is, for all intents and purposes, actually a Cabal (at least in their effect). | |||
| ::: Note what has happened here. Boris has managed to notify a large number of editors who are already known to be sympathetic to one another on these very types of issues while avoiding any notification of persons likely to be opposed. Hmmm, says I, what exactly ''would'' a ''competent Cabal'' have done? Your comment is also directly in line with any competent Cabal's agenda as it provides plausible cover and misdirection as well. Kudos to Boris on a clever gaming of the system. --] (]) 03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Aw...I haven't been canvassed yet and I'm on Abd's cabal list...I want IN!!!! ] (]) 04:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nah, GoRight. A truly skillful and conscious cabal would delegate participation here to a few editors proficient at presenting evidence and arguments to ArbComm and not allow the evidence and discussion to spin out, and it would not allow something like the canvassing to occur. That's why I emphasize the ''effect'' as being like a cabal, in certain ways, but this does not extend to sophisticated and intelligent coordination. I believe there is media source referring to a Misplaced Pages cabal. Does that mean that there is "really" a cabal? That would depend on definition, wouldn't it? By controlling the definition of "cabal" to mean what most alleged cabal members would know is not true for them, i.e., conscious membership and specific and covert coordination, one skilled at debate can turn these editors into tools for the real cabal, to prevent exposure, all without any conscious coordination. | |||
| ::::I'm using the word "cabal" to mean a group of editors who consistently cooperate toward certain ends that are rejected by consensus and by ArbComm, but who can pretend and imagine that they are in the majority, because of their conjoint and persistence presence, which creates a warped local consensus. Add into this a few cooperating administrators, who likewise do not see their activities as constituting "cabalism," the group can be very powerful, all without obvious violations of policy. | |||
| ::::In any specific discussion or set of actions, an editor may take the same actions as the "cabal," without being either consciously a member or even justifying in any way identification with the cabal. That's why the lists were not "lists of cabal members." But some actions are contrary to policy; for example, a common cabal action would be tag-team reversion. By being a member of a cabal, one may avoid the appearance of edit warring, because each editor may only make one revert; but bald reversion, even one edit, is actually strongly discouraged by policy. When we see a series of editors reverting, consistently, across a set of related articles, the suspicion of "cabal" rises. And we see the same editors arguing for users with a certain POV to be banned. And when we see those same editors arguing against, say, RfAr/Fringe science, the suspicion gets stronger that what is happening is the exclusion of content based, not on failure to satisfy RS guidelines, but on POV. | |||
| ::::So far, on the Evidence page, as far as I recall, I have not accused ''one'' editor of being a cabal member, let alone a huge list. As I wrote, if was prepared to make that assertion here, I would, and I'd notify the editors. Now, probably, every real cabal member has been notified, if they are recently active, my guess, or they have already participated here and don't need notification. There are certain names that I could easily provide, and most of them are pretty obvious, but I'd rather put it all together and not make charges until the evidence is laid out and clear. I actually don't know the number, it might be five or six editors, but I won't know until the actual documents are compiled and put in one place. | |||
| ::::Hersfold, what statement do you think I should refactor? "Anyone with an account on Misplaced Pages is free to comment here." We just saw an editor checkusered and blocked for commenting here, and the comments removed, by a possibly involved editor, among a host of other improprieties, with only empty threats that "next time this happens the editor will be blocked." Followed by, again, "Next time...." and so on. ... <s>and then, takes the cake. I can tell, my mind has apparently been wrecked by reading Misplaced Pages Review, but, really, a clerk practically begging Raul654 to behave, and have a nice day? How come when I was warned for what I hadn't done, there weren't any wishes for my "happy editing." I'm getting a tad concerned about the ability of the clerks to remain neutral, we might need some more active participation from arbitrators, or some gutsier clerks. We'll see. Maybe Hersfold will grow into the role.</s> We are now looking forward, perhaps, to a few more weeks of this, but I suspect it should quiet down. | |||
| ::::The statements about the cabal will be supported by the complete evidence -- or withdrawn. So what statements do you mean, Hersfold? But, '''yes, I wrote above about this being a dead horse, since, obviously, if there was damage, it was already done.''' What this means is more editors were encouraged to present evidence or comment who may be even less informed, and really not involved or accused of anything, but perhaps we will get lucky and some of them will actually do some real research before commenting. Otherwise it just means a bulkier set of pages, which I think the arbitrators wanted to avoid. | |||
| ::::I asked a question above about canvassing. Would it be proper for me to notify the ''other side'' in any of the pages where there was dispute, covered in my evidence, now or in the future? If I add other editors to those lists, should I notify them? I see that Short Brigade Harvester Boris asked here before going ahead and notifying, and I'm now asking. If I go ahead, would there be any problem? --] (]) 04:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Question:''' Is this discussion getting anywhere or is it time to move elsewhere now? It seems the main point has been addressed; these notifications are not inappropriate, Abd should strongly consider rewording his statements and/or providing more evidence to support them, anyone with an account on Misplaced Pages is free to comment here. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 02:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, with your helpful summary wrapping it up, I think we're done, thanks.] (]) 02:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''<!-- from Template:Archive bottom --></div> | |||
| Please could users respect the clerk's archiving boxes? ] (]) 08:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It seems there was a problem with edit conflicts - I know both Abd and I started editing before it was archived, and I presume Shot info did the same, but we didn't get the usual "edit conflict" notice when we tried to save. Instead it went straight through. My guess is that someone is working on the save algorithim. - ] (]) 08:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I wish to clarify things regarding . After making the comment Hersfold, pursuant to his/her duties as clerk, for what appeared to him/her to be a pointed stick aimed at Boris. The sorted the matter out and Boris indicated that . | |||
| The bit of clarification is this: my comment was merely intended as a response to TOAT. TOAT had made a point by way of constructing a caricature as a bit a amusing commentary. My post was merely intended to make a similar counterpoint by constructing my own caricature in line with TOAT's theme. My bit about Boris gaming the system was merely a bit of a flourish at the end. While Boris seems to have caught this nuance I wanted to make it explicit and to publicly apologize for any misunderstanding it might have created and for any hard feelings it might have generated. I did not intend it as a swipe at Boris at all. --] (]) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == General comment == | |||
| The purpose of the /evidence page is for editors to provide evidence that may be useful to the arbitrators who have to decide this case. Nothing else. The purpose of the /workshop page, similarly, is for editors to suggest proposals to the arbitrators for their consideration in deciding the case, and for other editors to provide comments on those proposals. Bickering back and forth among one another does not help us resolve the case. I will look quite askance at any further dubious behavior on these pages. ] (]) 18:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, NYB. --] (]) 21:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Contribution coming == | |||
| I hope to be able to contribute to this tomorrow. I've been very busy preparing for a new position (preparing courses and learning a new language!) so haven't had time to contribute fully. I hope to review everything and give my evidence tomorrow as I have a long day at an airport. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 12:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Ok, I've been too busy today and I'm about to board a flight, so I'll try in the next few days. Apologies. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: No internet access, and still VERY busy. I'm sorry and I'll try and contribute what I can, even if just views, ASAP. Sorry for this, very bad timing for me. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 19:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is never a good time for a RFAR :-/ but good luck with sorting this out ] <sup>'']''</sup> 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Notification == | |||
| ''the list of names under the heading "There is a cabal" certainly appeared to be a list of cabal members, and if I had been on the list, or had been mentioned in any way as part of the evidence given in a case before Arbcom, I certainly would have expected to be notified, most appropriately by the mentioner, but if not, at least by someone.'' | |||
| I wrote that in a section above which is now archived. Since then my name has appeared in what seems to be (but who knows?) the final "cabal" list, and I would like to register the fact that neither the accuser, nor a clerk, nor any considerate bystander notified me of this fact. I came across it by accident, and it took me a while to pick my jaw up off the floor. A notification by someone would have been appropriate, given the serious (though vague and illusive) nature of the accusation, which, as near as I can gather, is that I am working, consciously or unconsciously, in concert with others to bias the content of the encyclopedia. That is a serious charge and needs to be backed by solid evidence, in addition to a notification to me that the accusation has been made on the ArbCom evidence page ] (]) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, according to Abd nobody has to read his valuable contributions, or (proposed) react to them until they are seconded. So I guess the onus is on him. But never mind, it's a bit like ] - "his claims are here, his claims are there, his claims are like droppings everywhere. Are they in heaven?—Are they in hell? That damned, elusive concrete claims". --] (]) 16:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Evidence in an ArbComm case is a little different that comments on a Talk page, it may carry more weight. However, if I'm correct, the only editors I mentioned had already commented in this case, and it is not considered necessary to notify them of mention after that. If I'm wrong about that, I certainly apologize! Tell me if I'm wrong! At the time of the original canvassing, or "notification," by Short Brigade Harvester Boris no claims of cabal membership had been made, there was merely a list of editors who had !voted a certain way in certain discussions, and appearing in one of those lists meant practically nothing. I would have notified someone if it had become necessary. SBHB, however, may have done some of that for me! Note that I tried to notify Hipocrite, originally, and it was, at first, reverted by WMC, and he edit warred with Rootology over that! But, thanks to Short Brigade Harvester Boris's notices, Hipocrite was eventually notified, as well as some who were totally unnecessary. Thanks, SBHB. Poifect. | |||
| Woonpton, yes, I claim that your participation in certain discussions may have had some effect -- probably minor -- toward warping content, mostly by supporting an editor who warped content, or, in the other direction, supporting a ban of an editor who might be acting to balance it. Yes, I don't accuse you of conscious coordination, and I don't believe that you consciously coordinated; rather, the views that show cabal intention are clearly shown in your prior comments and are cited in the cabal evidence page, ]. That section was largely created to explain to you why you were named, and a little additional evidence was gathered specifically your statement about why you were not editing articles. Ordinarily, by the way, someone who is not here to edit articles and who participates heavily in bans and policy debates, can get into hot water quickly! So you should not be at all surprised to become involved in a case. Basically, you asked for it, assuming that you have read the warnings that come up when you edit ArbComm pages. | |||
| Stephan, shouldn't you be grateful that I'm so vague or elusive, if your claims are correct? I wonder, do you think that Arbitrators will be influenced by this claim? Which way? Perhaps I should shut up, I think you have done and are doing a great job. Keep it up. Or don't, if you conclude that the project will benefit by that course. Good luck, and may the project benefit by all this. If this is stupid disruption, though, I'd urge you to .... not debate a dead donkey or beat a dead horse. If it's all so obvious as you claim, why have you bothered to try to countersink the nails in my wikicoffin? --] (]) 23:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Honestly, "what"? --] (]) 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::If I'm translating correctly, each paragraph boils down to: | |||
| ::#I didn't need to notify anyone because they'd already commented here, and edit warring had taken place when I'd done so previously. | |||
| ::#I asserted that Woonpton was part of the cabal mentioned, although probably unintentionally. Your involvement here should not be a surprise due to your involvement in policy and ban discussions. | |||
| ::#Not at all sure, but it's looking like trolling. Mind you, the comment he's responding to isn't terribly good itself, so maybe you two should take a step away from each other. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Mythdon? ] (]) 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Bleah. Whoops. Mind was on another situation. Fixed now. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Pretty accurate except for the trolling part, which I don't really understand so maybe that's accurate too! Woonpton made this comment here and I thought she deserved an answer, but I see no purpose in debating it. If I should notify, Hersfold, just let me know! Though it might be more efficient to just notify! To my knowledge everyone had been notified already of this case, or had already commented in it, which is considered adequate. Yes, I've made no claim of conscious "cabalism" for anyone, not just Woonpton, but it's important to name the forest to understand the geography, so to speak. Some actual cabal activity would be seriously sanctionable (such as revert warring, something about which I've seen utterly no evidence involving Woonpton), other stuff is maybe worth looking at, such as reflexive affiliation and support in !votes that imply that one has reviewed evidence, but that's very tricky to address. Maybe she ''did'' review evidence, maybe it was even in an unbiased way, though it sure doesn't look like that to me. Essentially, I don't see anyone as being accused of anything reprehensible just because they have a possible bias. We are allowed to have biases. Good thing, too, or we'd all be blocked. But we do need to understand bias, and, for ], we only consider the consensus of ''uninvolved editors,'' and I'm proposing a more general definition of involvement, because I've found it necessary to understand the situation. If I'm wrong, well, I'm wrong, but the principle is sound, in fact. Thanks. Am I done here? --] (]) 00:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hersfold: ah, rereading more carefully, about trolling. I can see why you'd say that. It wasn't substantial, it was a metacomment, I'd stand behind it, but it wasn't necessary. I'm just pointing out what is generally true: there are many comments here about how stupid and silly or whatever my evidence and arguments supposedly are, so ... why bother even pointing that out? It's a part of the principle I proposed about not responding to stuff just because it's wrong. It just multiplies discussion. Sorry about my part in that. --] (]) 18:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Re. Hersfold: Thanks. I got the first two paragraphs (although I disagree with both, strongly). I'm stymied by the third. As for "not helpful" - well, the SP parody was somewhat gratuitous, but I stand by the gist of that comment. Abd produces not just walls, but in this case a labyrinth of text - parts in sub-pages, parts hidden in the history (but still linked too as current argument or evidence), arguably even parts on Misplaced Pages Review. One of his arguments is that nobody is forced to read his output. Well, but in that case its indeed common courtesy to inform an editor who gets dragged into an ArbCom case, even if that editor is aware that a case "Abd-William M. Connolley" exists, and even if he or she has commented there. --] (]) 07:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Woonpton was notified, wasn't she? However, when she was notified, no claim had been made that she was "cabal." That's why SBHB's notification was problematic. All that existed at that time was that she appeared in a list, which wasn't a list of cabal editors, it was a list of those who had participated in a discussion. Because there was no accusation, I didn't notify her. Because SBHB notified her, she then may have assumed that she wasn't being named. In other words, SBHB's notification, to which I objected, caused at least part of her problem. Once she made herself more relevant to this case, by extended comment here, and once I'd compiled the extended evidence, I did find it necessary to include her in the cabal list, when it was finally ready to be asserted. And since she'd been notified of this case, and had commented, I assumed no need to notify her, and it certainly appears that she was quickly aware, and this is all wikilawyering, because the ''purpose'' of notification was ultimately served. The complexity here was caused by premature reaction by SBHB. What's on Misplaced Pages Review is not relevant to this case, and it's illegitimate to introduce it, it's only mentioned here because a cabal editor complained about it, cherry-picking, easy to do with the Review. --] (]) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : ''Basically, you asked for it, assuming that you have read the warnings that come up when you edit ArbComm pages.'' ?? I have no idea what Abd is talking about here, except that it sounds very ominous. No warnings came up when I went to edit the evidence page, only instructions about length guidelines and about posting only in your own section, eg "If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section," which is what I did. There was no warning that said anything like, "Be aware that by posting on this page you are asking to have ridiculous charges brought against you." | |||
| :Facts: I participated on the cold fusion talk page briefly during the time that's at issue in this case. When I saw claims made here that were not supported by the record, I felt obliged to point out what the actual record shows. I haven't made personal attacks on this case; I have simply contributed evidence, analysis and comments, unless someone can point to something I need to redact and/or apologize for. This is the first time (and I expect the last time; it's been a distinctly unpleasant experience) I've submitted evidence on a case, but as far as I know, and certainly as far as my motivation goes, everything I've done on this case has been consistent with being a good citizen of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| :As for "participating heavily in bans and policy debate", and as for why I no longer edit Misplaced Pages articles, let's look at the history. I've been with Misplaced Pages since January 30, 2008, and have a total of 529 edits, an average of about one edit per day, hardly indicative of "heavy participation" in any part of the project. The bulk of the article work I did was on What the Bleep Do We Know while it was full-protected, so what I did there was on the talk page. That's where I learned how consensus works; the editors there worked to construct a lead that all editors could agree on, and submitted it for an administrator to insert into the article once we were agreed that the material was acceptable to everyone. It was an interesting and instructive experience for me, and a good introduction to how Misplaced Pages works; I met some good editors there. But that is also where I became aware of editors who are employees of or devotees of involved institutions and organizations and whose purpose at Misplaced Pages is to represent and promote products, organizations and fringe theories rather than to write a neutral encyclopedia, where I became concerned about the kind of advocacy that compromises content quality and turns areas of the encyclopedia into a compendium of promotional brochures for fringe ideas and schemes, and to realize the futility of trying to maintain neutral content in the face of this persistence in advocacy. | |||
| :There are 204 edits to Misplaced Pages space, of which 23 are to this case. Most of the rest of the WP edits were to essays like Civil POV-pushing and the expert withdrawal discussion; going through the contributions edit by edit, I am hard pressed to find edits to bans and policy discussions. | |||
| :As for "supporting an editor who warped content" and by that action making myself as guilty as if I'd warped content myself, I suppose Abd means Kirk Shanahan. Honest people can have differences of opinion about what constitutes a neutral presentation of a topic. I happen to agree more with Kirk Shanahan about the neutral presentation of cold fusion than I agree with Abd. Most scientists agree with Kirk and me. The insinuation that I agree with Shanahan out of some blind adherence to a particular POV, and not because we both look at the same information and see it the same way independently, is preposterous. It seems that what Abd is saying is that anyone whose reading of reliable third party sources differs from his is "warping content," in the same way that he asserted, after I voted for Kirk Shanahan's poll option because in my opinion it was the most neutral of the three options available at the time (not perfect but a better place to start because it wasn't overly weighted with fringe advocacy), that Shanahan was a biased editor, his version was biased, and that anyone who voted for that version was showing their own bias. In other words, there was a wrong answer on the poll, and I picked the wrong answer; by the same token there's a wrong "side" to take in the cold fusion content dispute generally, and I'm on that wrong side (although silly me, I thought ArbCom didn't hear content disputes). If I'm named as a party to the case, as Abd seems to be threatening above with his "you asked for it," I won't participate and will withdraw from Misplaced Pages altogether; life is too short. Sorry for the length, but there was so much in that response that needed to be challenged; that's why I've tried to avoid reading Abd's responses. I will now be taking this case off my watchlist, to ensure that I'll see no more of them. | |||
| :I do now understand that if an editor has already commented in a case, it is usually assumed that the editor has read everything in the case and would be aware of accusations against them. In this case, that doesn't seem a reasonable assumption.] (]) 16:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I apologize for asserting that there is a warning in the edit message you get when you edit these pages. I had remembered such, but I think I was remembering general advice about ArbComm cases: those who present evidence or make proposals are placing them before ArbComm, which may decide to consider inappropriate behavior directly. I can't apologize for assertions that Woonpton claims I made about her, she makes specific inferences from general statements that don't hold. I assert that prior bias does affect how we see what comes in front of us. There was nothing ''reprehensible'' about Woonpton's vote in the poll; however, that she chose a version that nobody else supported, who was familiar with the article, including the most extreme of the editors, shows, indeed, a bias toward what she believes about what "most scientists" would agree with. What she thinks may well be true about "most scientists," until we consider what scientists familiar with the field think. There is a difference. I'm not sure what Kirk shanahan's field is, but I suspect he's a chemist. Cold fusion is still very controversial, even among chemists (more so among physicists, it's the American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press which has published a low-energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, not the American Physical Society, though the latter has held seminars), but among electrochemists, particularly experts in calorimetry, Kirk Shanahan's views are probably fringe. That is, within experts in the topic he has been published on, he's an outlier. His work has been criticized in print, but not accepted by anyone. But not being familiar with the literature, and only having a general view about what "most scientists think," and not the details, it is certainly understandable that you'd consider his views to be mainstream. This situation is, indeed, the problem at cold fusion, a gap between what is known and what can be established from reliable source, and especially peer-reviewed secondary source or academic sources, and what is "general opinion." | |||
| ::Evidence in cases is prepared for ArbComm, not exactly for the community. It's done in front of the community so that people can read it and correct errors or fill in the gaps. ArbComm process is a bit loose, and evidence is still being added to the Evidence page. I can understand the problem; indeed, there is a hierarchical structure to my Evidence, as there is with Enric's evidence. What evidence is important for ArbComm to see shifts with what evidence others present, and the pile-in of cabal editors made it necessary to warn about bias, to show how there is a "side" to this case which is quite coherent and consistent, as I'd seen before. I'll repeat again: my claim that an editor is part of a "cabal" is not a charge of malfeasance. A cabal is a faction, and factions clearly exist. In this case, the word "cabal" has been used because the faction includes administrators who have used their tools to enforce cabal positions, and that's an exercise of illegitimate power, and we wouldn't say "cabal" if there were no illegitimate use of power; Woonpton, you have shown that you believe that administrators ''should'' use their tools to enforce content guidelines, such as ], ], and presumably ]. That's a cabal position, and it's a rejected position. Excepting some extreme situations (BLP and copyright violation, clear vandalism) administrative tools are to be used to enforce ''behavioral'' guidelines, not content guidelines, which then allows ''the community'' to enforce content guidelines through consensus. | |||
| ::What I've written about you would not, I believe, place you at risk of any sanctions, even if it is all accepted by ArbComm. You have a right to hold the opinions you have expressed, but I also have the right to point out that these opinions lead me to expect bias in your evidence and proposals, and I needed to be able to refer to this bias, in general, not merely your ''particular, personal'' bias succinctly. Hence "cabal." That's all. I'm sorry that this has been a negative experience for you; however, consider what it's like to have a dozen editors complaining about every thing you do, and that you should be banned. I hope you never have to face that. Hint: it's not fun. --] (]) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == another sock == | |||
| Please remove the evidence submited by ] as a checkuser-confirmed sock of ]. --] (]) 20:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there a clerk active on this case at the moment? ] (]) 21:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Hersfold is on hols. Arbcomm didn't bother appoint anyone to cover his absence ] (]) 23:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::It appears that it has been {{done}} by clerk {{Admin|MBisanz}}. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestions for rebuttals to Coppertwig evidence? == | |||
| I would like to include at the end of each subsection of my evidence a diff link to a rebuttal: an argument or piece of evidence considered to rebut my point. I welcome suggestions for such, and will give priority to suggestions from people who disagree with my points, especially parties to the case. I'll try to remember to look here for replies, although putting a message on my talk page is a faster and surer way to get my attention. I'm sorry I didn't think of this earlier and hope it's not too late. <span style="color:Red; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : There is vast amounts of evidence here (I don't mean yours specifically) most of which I haven't bothered read. To take one specific point: ''WMC referred to a userbox which cited Misplaced Pages:Trifecta; a ban reason which...'' - I've already explained that is wrong, are you planning to revise your evidence? ''Administrators normally do not have the authority to create bans by themselves'' isn't really evidence, it is a proposed principle. People have told you thats not really how it works (I forget where) but you've made no change ] (]) 13:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your reply. I haven't had time to read everything either, and if I've read things (and disagreed with them) I may not remember where they are. I tried a couple of days ago to find rebuttal links for each section but gave up due to a combination of difficulty finding good links, uncertainty as to what those with opposing opinions would consider good links, and shortage of time. | |||
| ::I'm sorry about the difficulty re Trifecta; I'm not sure whether that's a miscommunication or a disagreement or what. I think I either didn't understand or didn't agree with (or perhaps didn't see) your explanation. If you remind me where it is I'll re-read it and maybe get it this time. Is it inaccurate to state that you referred to a userbox? Oh, is it because you didn't intend it as a serious answer? You're welcome to suggest different wording; I may or may not change the wording itself (as opposed to just adding a diff for rebuttal). | |||
| ::: My evidence isn't long. The bit you want is the first point under other stuff ] (]) 14:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::People have stated that administrators do have the authority to create bans by themselves, and given reasons supporting that statement, but I'm not convinced and still have the opinion that they normally do not; just as your opinion didn't change on reading my statement and reasons. I don't think I've seen anyone attempting to rebut the reason I gave in "]". | |||
| ::Would it make sense for me to cite the diff of your comment above as the rebuttal to section "]"? <span style="color:Orange; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't exactly agree with you, CT; it's a semantic issue. Community bans and ArbComm bans are one kind of animal, what I call administrative bans are another. Administrative bans are really a broad warning that an admin considers an editor's participation problematic. You are correct that an admin cannot declare a ban and then block an editor based on a non-disruptive edit. This was never tested in this case, though it's a bit unclear. Was WMC blocking me because of ''his'' ban, or because of the community ban? Doesn't matter much. The occasion to edit under ban did not arise until I was effectively community banned at AN/I. | |||
| ::::For an admin to say "I am banning you from X" is only a general warning, an intention declared to block if disruptive behavior continues, and it does not create a right for the admin to block for what the admin could otherwise not have properly blocked for. A community ban does not require an admin to consider disruptiveness of the actual edit, an admin ''may'' block for a nondisruptive edit that violates a community or A/C ban; however, this is exactly what WMC called "stupid." And the irony was that this was an obvious consensus at the time, and the one who raised, most clearly, the issue of how such "harmless edits" complicated ban enforcement, was ''me.'' And that's why I proposed self-reversion as a solution. Guarantees (in almost all situations) that the edit is not disruptive, and that's easy to verify. Further, should an admin block for a harmless edit, rectifying it should be fairly easy, unless the very fact of an edit is considered disruptive; and that's part of why we are here, to examine this. | |||
| ::::'''It can be argued that an admin ban is not a ban at all,''' but if we take it as a strong and general warning, it works. For example, if WMC had written, "Your posts at Talk:Cold fusion are disruptively long, I'm banning you from that page." WMC could then, without further warning -- assuming this was on my Talk! -- block me for a long post. But not for a short one that was otherwise also not disruptive. | |||
| ::::'''Bottom line:''' An admin cannot create a block right for himself or herself by warning with a "ban" instead of a more specific warning. Defiance of a demand by a single admin -- or of any individual except maybe Jimbo -- is not a blockable offense. | |||
| ::::'''The issue of "harmless edits" only arises with ArbComm bans (as with ScienceApologist) or community bans,''' as with WMC's block of me in this case, assuming it was based on the latter. I argue that self-reverted edits are not ban violations even with ArbComm bans or community bans, unless there is a specific finding on that, or specific disruption involved. They should ''not'' routinely result in a block, but that's more because they are not edits at all, in anything more than very transient effect. | |||
| ::::'''This is all going to come up when we address the Scibaby case.''' Scibaby's ban was administrative, not a community ban, except by default, a provision on ] which I consider quite dangerous, because it allows what can be quite disruptive, long-term, a possibly unnecessary "ban," maintained by an admin or others supporting that admin without ever examining the original basis, that then creates its own violations as an editor who feels unfairly excluded, which is easy to do when it is just one or two administrators, decides to not take it lying down. --] (]) 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::@Coppertwig (I don't want to interrupt your conversation with WMC, I just post here two problems in your evidence). I pointed to you that Abd said all his long comments are discussion, and that asking him to shorten his discussion would be asking him not to discuss. So Abd was certainly saying that he ''can't'' shorten his long comments (nobody has asked him to shorten his ''short'' comments, just the too long ones). He suggested an alternative: entering into polemics with him, where he has no problem in taking longer to write shorter comments, but he implies negative consequences for the editor daring to do such a thing You didn't correct it, and you didn't tweak it to explain how the "I can make shorter comments" offer carried veiled threats with it. (and I just added ] to my evidence, to cover all reasons given by Abd for not writing shorter comments) | |||
| :::And your evidence still says "''at a time when there were two polls active on the talk page showing some support for other versions of the page''", even after the flaws in one of the polls have been dissected in the workshop page (under Bilby's and Woonpton's evidence) and discussed thoroughly in the evidence page (in analysis of evidence, under "Abd's Evidence for consensus"), and it has been pointed out how most editors didn't vote in any of the polls, others refused to participate in one of them, and one even withdrew his vote. --] (]) 14:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Enric, you've been pushing your framing of the ADHD thing for quite a while, why did you bring that here?''' Do you think that an argument gets stronger by simply repeating it all over the place without addressing the issues which have been raised regarding it? I generally cannot ''write'' shorter comments, that's a fact, but what I can do is to ''edit'' them down. It takes much more time than just writing what I consider relevant to a discussion. And, by the way, I routinely eliminate much of what I write, normally. I'm talking about serious boiling down. It's absolutely correct that it's a choice that I sometimes don't do it. I.e., if I have a tax bill and I have the rent to pay, and I need to pay the rent and that leaves me with no money for the tax, the tax collector can indeed say, "You had the money, you could have paid the tax," and it would be correct. But that doesn't make it advisable, necessarily. I take the very substantial time required to edit down comments on complex issues only when it seems needed and likely to be useful. I don't do it when I think that the extra work will not provide fruit justifying the labor. | |||
| ::::You are right about the polls. '''We have eight million registered editors, and most of them did not participate in the polls,''' nor do they in ''any'' poll. The purpose of my poll, and the declared purpose of the other poll, was to assess, quickly, rough consensus, while the article was protected, so we could identify if there was a version that would not be controversial among the involved editors. For that purpose, it doesn't matter if we have one poll, or a dozen polls, as long as the ''information provided by the editors'' is adequate to make a quick judgment. I don't see how "refusal" to participate in one poll or the other has any bearing at all on that, especially given that, I ''did'' participate in the other poll, effectively, by responding to it through adding those options to my poll and rating them. Sure, Hipocrite and Verbal did not participate in my poll, but both versions that they proposed and accepted would have been fine, as my poll showed. What you have been doing, Enric, is trying to use this and my descriptions of it as some kind of offense that you have "caught" me in. The purpose was to as rapidly as possible assess consensus, that purpose was accomplished, later !votes showed that what the early polling indicated was accurate, but the information was not used, largely because I was banned mid-process. It still has not been used. Absolutely, it got a bit confusing, I'm sure, to an editor peeking in. But that is largely because, having caused the problem in the first place by gaming RfPP to freeze the article in his only very highly POV version, which ''nobody'' proposed as usable, not even Hipocrite, he then successfully disrupted the process (as to perception, not as to the reality discernible in the votes) by starting up an independent poll, instead of, as invited, simply adding his preferred versions to the existing poll and fully approving them, which would have been exactly equivalent, in terms of expression of opinion on the versions, as what he did. It was pure disruption, and I doubt that ArbComm will miss this. If he could delay a decision, or unprotection, he could keep his POV text in the article longer. --] (]) 16:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::About shorter comments, see ] | |||
| :::::About polls, I replied ]. --] (]) 22:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::(ec) Coppertwig, you made 8 statements in your evidence. Statements 5, 6, 7 don't seem reasonable; they reflect your own point of view and resulting spin on things. Abd claims to be in dispute with large numbers of editors/administrators on wikipedia, whom he has conveniently grouped together into a cabal. For 8, cold fusion is fringe science; some theoretical explanations by those still researching in the area have resorted to pseudoscience. As for statements 1-4, this is a somewhat grey area in the guidelines and I think WMC used his initiative to resolve an impasse while the article page was locked, due to the edit war between Hipocrite and Abd and breakdown of procedure on the talk page. He showed no favouritism and certainly the mass of complaints and wikilawyering generated by Abd was matched by unreserved acceptance on Hipocrite's part. The page-ban was supported by the community at ANI, a fact glossed over in your evidence. Arbitrators will use your evidence as they see fit. On the other hand Fritzpoll has initiated some discussion on the workshop page for making page-bans into a more standard procedure. That would probably be helpful. I don't think this is the correct place for discussion of these matters. Any further discussion should probably occur on the workshop page. In theory you could even start a section on the analysis of your own evidence there, although I'm not sure that would be particularly useful. ] (]) 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''I'm not in "dispute with large numbers of editors/administrators," I'm in extended, long-term, dispute, and it's obvious, with a handful.''' Currently, the cabal list shows thirteen editors, six of them administrators, several ordinary editors being minor players in the cabal, long-term, and only mentioned because of prior expressed arguments (not involving me, generally) showing alignment with the illegitimate cabal agenda, as I see it -- it's ''my'' evidence, after all -- and immediate relevance; likewise, there are a few more, possibly two or three, who might be mentioned if it was relevant, but they did not become sufficiently involved in the case before us. I'm using the word "cabal," with precise meaning, which I've given: a group of editors who frequently cooperate together to advance an agenda contrary to policy and ArbComm decisions. It would include tag-team reversion, incivility, preferential treatment of editors according to POV, etc. We need a word for this, and it only became obvious to me how badly it was needed when I broke the taboo and named it. | |||
| ::::'''Yes, a page-ban was confirmed by the community, under conditions which have been carefully and accurately described. And it has expired, and this case was not raised based on it.''' The primary issue in this case is WMC's right to unilaterally declare page bans, to insist on the bans in spite of a claim of involvement -- ArbComm will decide if my initial claim of involvement was reasonable --, to block based on a later community ban, in spite of the close of that ban specifying that the closing admin intended to accept my request that WMC no longer be in charge of it, based on my claim of involvement, and, further, even after that ban has expired, to claim that he can ''still'' block me for no other offense than "violating" his personal ban. If he was not involved before, surely he is now! | |||
| ::::'''Why is the cabal involved?''' Because the cabal poured in here, as it has often done, to complicate the case with laundry lists of every imaginable offense that Enric could dredge up over two years of active editing, to argue tendentiously on just about every point, apparently to attempt to divert attention from the primary claim, which really should be open and shut, just as was the JzG case that the same cabal resisted so strongly, calling for me to be banned then for raising an issue which ArbComm confirmed as valid. And it was blatantly so. That's quite diagnostic of what's going on here. Those were not all "cabal" editors; rather, when the cabal pours in and makes an appearance of snow in a certain direction, others are easily attracted to agree with some of the plausible-seeming arguments. --] (]) 16:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Abd's response is based on the fact that there is general acceptance of the existence of a cabal. There is no cabal. These edits of Abd are time-wasting wikilawyering: they are completely disconnected with reality. ] (]) 22:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''WMC''', I've re-read your evidence section and have my evidence to try to address your objection. Please let me know if it still seems inaccurate. | |||
| :::::::'''Abd''', yes, you've explained before about your support for administrative bans. It's just a question of semantics. But semantics can be important, no? I've chosen to use a definition of "ban" that differs from yours. I suppose administrators can say things like "if you revert again, I'll block you," which is more-or-less what you're proposing. | |||
| :::::::'''Enric Naval''', I disagree with your logic. It doesn't follow that Abd can't shorten long comments. He can; I think he's saying that then they would no longer be discussion but something else. (And that it takes him a lot of time and effort, and that even when he posts long comments he's already put work into shortening them that far.) I'll put a link to your diff into my evidence. | |||
| :::::::I don't know what you mean by "veiled threats". I don't remember making any in relation to this case, nor seeing any by Abd. If someone says something like "I can talk more quietly if you like, but then you might not hear me," that isn't a veiled threat: it's just informing the person about what will inevitably happen, which the one speaking has no control over. | |||
| :::::::Re the polls, it seems to me that the statements in my evidence don't contradict the statements you made. For example, I didn't say that there were or were not any flaws in the polls. If you see a contradiction you'll have to point it out to me more specifically. | |||
| :::::::'''Mathsci''', thank you for providing rebuttals. I'm adding a link to your post into my evidence. | |||
| :::::::One definition of cabal is "clique". I think it would be difficult to argue that such don't exist. Humans naturally tend to cluster into groups of friends, like-minded people etc. "Mathematicians make up the rules as they go along": if Abd chooses to use the word "cabal" to refer to a particular group of people, one might criticize his choice of words but I don't think it makes sense to claim that the group doesn't exist. | |||
| :::::::'''Everyone''', thank you for your comments. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 22:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@Copper, Mathsci says it better than me: "Arbitrators will use your evidence as they see fit". And they will do the same with my own evidence. Your evidence has to be written towards convincing arbs that certain facts happened and that they happened for certain reasons and not others, not towards convincing us or satisfying yourself. | |||
| ::::::::By veiled threats I meant Abd's statement linked in your evidence: "''If you want polemic, ask for it, but don't complain if you are then excluded from being part of a consensus formed. Discussion is voluntary. Watch out for polemic, it can poison consensus, and do not confuse the two. You are not the first to do so.''". So, either you stand his long-winded discussion, or you enter polemic with him and risk being excluded from consensus and poisoning consensus. Not really helpful, specially if you notice that it's a reply to a polite request by Verbal about his long comments difficulting communication in the talk page, back when Abd had not still caused massive disruption in the talk page and still thought that a few advices would make him realize the problem and change his behaviour. --] (]) 23:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::@Abd. .... hum... *shakes his head* ... Never mind, your comment speaks volumes about how you have taken heed to the good-faith advices about seeing cabals and claiming about admin involvement. --] (]) 23:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::(ec) I disagree with you Coppertwig. This is not evidence, just your own attempts to manufacture events for you to report on. This was a little similar to your unprompted invitation posted to other editors' talk pages, including mine, to work on Abd's userpage essay entitled ], generally characterized as a personal rant during the subsequent MfD I started. Your own wikilawyering comments about cabals or cliques seem to be uncharitable smears on a large group of editors, no matter how politely you try to phrase them. Like Abd, you provide no evidence. Abd's ideas about a cabal are extreme and widely rejected, because so many editors - not just a handful - seem to disagree with him. Do you have some simple explanation why in these circumstances you appear to unquestioningly agree with these far-fetched ideas of Abd? Please give us at least a hint. ] (]) 23:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::I also want to know why you, Copper, accept advice from Abd and GoRight as if they were always right. Honestly, an advice here, stop that. You are learning twisted ideas about how Misplaced Pages works, go learn from someone else. --] (]) 23:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::'''Enric Naval''', I don't think that was intended as a threat. I think Abd was just predicting what might happen, which he would have no power to prevent. | |||
| :::::::::::I don't "accept advice from Abd and GoRight as if they were always right". I think for myself, and disagree with Abd at times (see above). I haven't interacted with GoRight much so I'm not sure whether we've disagreed on anything yet. | |||
| :::::::::::'''Mathsci''', I had no intention to smear anyone. I realize that some definitions of the word "cabal" have negative connotations, and I tried to word my comment in such a way as not to state or imply that I was applying those connotations to anyone; I apologize if I didn't succeed. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 13:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| `:::::::::::You are supporting Abd all the time even after he's been told repeatedly that he's wrong. And then you defend him all the time. That is a problem. It's not good for you. It's influencing your perceptions. Stop doing it. That's all I had to say. --] (]) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Confused why Mr. Connolley block so many editors indefinetly for 3rrs== | |||
| Why does Mr. Connolley block so many editors indefinetly for 3rrs? I can see if these were vandalism only account, or sock puppets...but 3rr? | |||
| No previous blocks: | |||
| * ] | |||
| *"3rr at Banská Bystrica" | |||
| ] (]) 02:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In the second case, the block was indefinite, but the described the block as "temporary" (in the edit summary) and indicated that the block duration was 24 hours. That looks like an honest mixup on WMC's part to me. Furthermore, the editor in question by voicing understanding of why their edit-warring was problematic, was then , and has continued editing here without further blocks. In other words, it was a ''successful'' administrative intervention, at least by most reasonable measures. Have you asked WMC about these blocks before voicing your confusion here? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::My guess is that WMC frequents the ]. Both cases mentioned were raised there ( ) and responded to by WMC. - ] (]) 04:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::thank you for your responses. I haven't asked WMC. I find it better to keep the conversation on one page, especially something like this discussion. Moving the discussion to a talk page only makes things worse in my experience. Again, thank you for the reponses. Maybe ] should be unblocked? I would write it on his talk page, but I don't want to sound contradictory. ] (]) 05:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What about some due diligence? ] remains blocked as a sock puppeteer, not a 3RR violator. --] (]) 08:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you Schulz. I see his user page now. I appreciate the clarifications. ] (]) 04:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Evidence by Ikip == | |||
| *{{Userlinks|Ikip}} | |||
| The evidence presented by Ikip is inaccurate, off-topic and should probably be partly removed. This user is reporting inaccurately about events which have nothing to do with this case. On the workshop page I already indicated in this diff that Abd's own comments on the A.K.Nole thread at ] were inaccurate and irrelevant and contradicted by two ex-arbs and multiple senior administrators. The same applies but even more so to Ikip, whose evidence is quite unreadable and appears to be seeking to muddy the waters. He also seems to bear a grudge of some sort. ] (]) 12:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Ikip's evidence looks certainly on-topic to me. I haven't checked it for accuracy. You can discuss any alleged inaccuracies here or in the analysis of evidence workshop subpage. A major topic of the case is whether there has been abuse of admin tools by WMC; that's exactly what Ikip's evidence is addressing. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:13pt;">☺</span>] (]) 12:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, Coppertwig you are not being accurate. Other blocks/bans by WMC at other times and for other users are not being questioned here. I would guess that with Abd's page-ban violation and subsequent block your own evidence probably needs to be rewritten. ] (]) 13:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: I think a clerk should look at it, as I stated in my opposes to the associated proposals. Both his evidence and his proposals should probably be removed by a clerk. Ikip's evidence is not addressing anything to do with this case, and seems more personal and unpleasant. As our clerk is away, how do we get another to look? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 13:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Typically, in a case, arbitrators are free to examine all behaviour of all involved. In accepting the case, arbitrators mentioned "concern over misuse of tools" and "WMC conduct", among other things, therefore it seems very relevant to me. I believe it's up to the arbitrators to decide what is or isn't relevant. Re how to contact a clerk while Hersfold is away: see ], or contact ], a clerk who helped with this case yesterday. <span style="color:Blue; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 13:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Verbal: typical. If you can't fight the overwhelming evidence, attempt to bury it in a technicality. Why not ask the clerk to remove arbcom Flonight's evidence too?: ] | |||
| :::::x) Multiple times {{userlinks|William M. Connolley}} has blocked editors when he was an "involved administrator". Giovanni33 , . Abd. , (a find of fact in Geogre-William M. Connolley case). | |||
| ::::There is absolutly no substance thus far in this complain section. ] is not a valid defense to 40 plus examples on administrative abuse. ] (]) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If evidence is thought to be inaccurate, the way to deal with it is to either trust the arbitrators to realise that, or to rebut the evidence and/or raise concerns about it. Removing evidence is not something that should be done lightly. I don't want to have to trawl through the history of an evidence page trying to work out where evidence was removed and whether it should have been removed or not. ] (]) 14:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :It was unfortunate that I used the word "inaccurate" first, although the diff I provided to the workshop page explains the inaccuracy I found. The main point is the second word "off-topic", i.e. the irrelevance of Ikip's evidence which is not about the events concerning Abd, WMC and the two cold fusion pages. ] (]) 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not to mention that Ikip seems to be cherry-picking everything negative ever said about WMC's activities, while skiping over the positive things. In particular that discussion about "trolling" being an acceptable and accurate block summary. (I'll be damned if I can find the link in this mess of a case) --] (]) 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Actually I think the "evidence" by IKIP weighs heavily in WMCs favour. WMC's fault is occasional impatience with red tape, the existence of all of these tedious objections are evidence that he carries a heavy burden in protecting the rest of us from ], since I am certain if not allowed free reign to wreck WP someone else would be in the firing line. A while back I was sent to see an elderly lady claiming the company I worked for had damaged her gooseberry bush. Her opening sentence was "you killed my gooseberry bush and the electricity hasn't been right since the war". We bought a new gooseberry bush. --] ] 10:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Really nice attempt to spin, but 10 arbcoms disagreed , along with arbcom Flonight too.] (]) 19:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Great, when Connolley's defenders start to add a whole section dedicated to my evidence, I know I am being very effective. Since arbs don't read talk pages as much as the evidence pages and workshops, I will keep my comments there. This is a distraction. | |||
| So far I see that arbcom flonight is agreeing with what I have said, what numerous admins have said for a long time, and what the arbcom agreed with unanimously a year ago: that william connolley abuses his administrative powers repeatedly. | |||
| Mathsci, the block you personally benefited is one of over 40. Connolley will be lucky to get only 3 months of losing his admin powers, as flonight suggests. ] (]) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Is the 1000 word limit real? == | |||
| I just added up the length of Abd's evidence, including the 13 "response to" sections which were clearly written as part of his evidence for this case. It came to 44,849 words according to Word's built in counter. ] (]) 02:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, but I'd given up enforcing it some weeks back when it became clear that there was just too much evidence being submitted to feasibly require that parties limit their text. In general, however, yes, evidence should be limited to 1000 words or ported to a subpage in userspace as some people here have done. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 02:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: @C: hear hear. @H: I don't think that is a good answer. Taken literally, it appears to be "yes, but no". More seriously, if the limit is set by Arbcomm, why did you give up enforcing it? Who gave you permission to give up enforcing it? Did you get any positive permission from arbcomm, or are you just relying on their king-log approach? Come to that, what efforts *did* you make to enforce it? I did not see any serious efforts on your part ] (]) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::King-log? ] (]) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Presumably a reference to ]. Although a curious one, in this context: when the frogs criticized King Log's passivity and demanded a more active ruler, he was replaced with a hungry, frogivorous stork. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: See my user page. Now, how about an actual answer to the question at hand? ] (]) 08:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I stopped enforcing it because it became clear that there was too much evidence in this case to reasonably expect parties to limit themselves to 1000 words. I was not given permission to do so, nor do I believe it's necessary since ArbCom hasn't said anything about it. I believe I did ask some users to refactor their evidence for length earlier on, however I can't recall who nor do I have the time to look for diffs now. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Hmmm. The question is how much value is in all that evidence, and how much would be lost if everybody had to cut his or hers down to 1000 words. ArbCom would actually be able to read it ;-) --] (]) 07:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::As I said, ArbCom hasn't said anything. If they want me to shorten it, I'd be happy to lay about with a wet trout. As it is, however, I'm very busy IRL what with college starting up today and really don't have the time to do this if it isn't necessary. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 14:27, 1 September 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) |