Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 16:03, 10 January 2010 (→Request for clarification (January 2010): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:03, 10 January 2010 by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) (→Request for clarification (January 2010): new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Additional statements

Statement by Mathsci

I recommend that ArbCom reject this second disruptive request from Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account that has regressed to a single purpose account. Abd is now a tendentious fringe POV-pusher. His editing of cold fusion and its talk page openly acknowledged off-wiki contacts with two advocates, Steven B. Krivit and community banned editor User:JedRothwell, neither of them recognized scientists. Abd has shown contempt for any other users with scientific training: the fact that he frequently addresses User:William M. Connolley as "Dr. Connolley" on talk pages was not a sign of respect, in the light of this request, which he has threatened for some time. Abd was page-banned from cold fusion and its talk page by WMC. He has engaged in discussions on the article on user talk pages, but not the mediation page. His misuse of secondary sources has been criticized by a number of experts in chemistry, including EdChem (talk · contribs) and Kirk shanahan (talk · contribs). The page-bans were given community support on WP:ANI. Abd's editing of cold fusion started roughly around the time of the "Fringe science" ArbCom case and was briefly mentioned in the "Abd & JZG" case, when his editing patterns were less clear. In this case, this needless escalation of dispute resolution should probably result in an indefinite community ban for Abd. His timing of this request might be another tactic. He might wish to attract the large circus surrounding the Obama articles. WMC has made some unpopular blocks there; and there is a peanut gallery which might share Abd's personal animosity to experts in science and grudges against WMC. The last ArbCom case directly involving Abd resulted in the disappearance of JzG (talk · contribs): Abd might be trying to do the same now with WMC. Abd's own editing patterns are highly problematic. At the moment there does not seem to be anything positive that Abd is contributing to WP. This long premeditated request is wholly negative. I hope that elsewhere the community can discuss an indefinite ban and that ArbCom reject this case. Abd is continuing to justify his on-wiki behaviour using his crackpot userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing as if it were WP policy.

  • As far as Coppertwig's statements go, he is simply reiterating Abd's point of view. This view is shared by hardly any other editors and certainly none who edit serious namespace articles on uncontroversial material. Coppertwig should look at the talk pages of EdChem and Kirk shanahan to see how Abd interacts in an unhelpful way with established scientists.
  • I don't think Jehochman's comments about wiki meetups are helpful. I have met WMC twice at wiki meetups: he seemed quiet, thoughtful and pleasant, but after 2 brief meetings I wouldn't venture to make any statement about him on the basis of that. Why should the fact that Jehochman has formed a personal hunch as a result of wikidrinks validate a highly disruptive request against a fellow administrator?
  • Abd has been close to being blocked just recently for proxy editing on behalf of an indefinitely blocked user Scibaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by ex-arb Raul654 (talk · contribs). I hope that arbitrators will make it clear that this case will examine Abd's problematic editing behaviour.
  • In response to Jehochman's question: I am 52. I also have a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania (1981). Any other questions? Just in case. My operating system is kubuntu. I have two brothers. My favourite colour is blue.
  • In response to Abd's idea of including me as a party, I will add that almost all my interactions with Abd have been on the talk page of cold fusion where, with other trained scientists, I have tried to outline how to use and identify academic scientific sources properly. I have been unsuccessful and stopped contributing there at the beginning of June, because as with EdChem and Kirk shanahan, Abd is evasive about issues of secondary sources. Unlike Abd almost all my namespace edits are in uncontroversial mainstream areas in the sciences and the arts (e.g. the most recent The Four Seasons (Poussin)). Abd attempted to add me to his list: this is an indication of the way he likes to waste other people's time on wikipedia. Please could he get back to editing noncontroversial namespace articles on this encyclopedia rather than wasting other people's time, dramamongering and wikilawyering? Is he trying to wear us all out? The extra section he added is almost as meaningless as his recent assertions that mathematics articles on Encyclopedia Britannica are not written by experts. This kind of thing is best left unwritten.
  • Abd is an extremely difficult and tendentious editor. As Raul654 points out, his whole editing behaviour tests the system subversively. On the slimmest possible evidence he creates fantasy arguments which are apparently the result of a vivid imagination with little or no contact with reality. This applies to his namespace editing and to his hostile and dismissive remarks about other editors, in all of which he gives free rein to his personal conspiracy theories. I have made no edits to cold fusion and a total of 16 edits for 10 short posts to its talk page prior to June 5, almost all concerning a recent neutral essay-review article which I exceptionally made available as sheldon.pdf on http://mathsci.free.fr for both Abd and Enric Naval. Despite this minimal involvement, Abd attempted to add me twice to his list. Moreover Abd tried to make further adjustments to his list, even after an explicit warning from the clerks, which he deliberately chose to ignore or wikilawyer his way around.
  • In reply to Hersfold, I suggest the title "Abd and William M. Connolley".

Statement by Bilby

Prior to WMC's involvement at Cold fusion, the article had been the subject of an edit war between Abd and User:Hipocrite which resulted in full protection by WMC for one week. After the protection was lifted, the two editors engaged in a second edit war, resulting in the page being protected a second time by Causa sui. This led to an extremely messy situation on the Cold fusion talk page, with two concurrent polls being run on the same changes by the two editors. The first, by Abd, used a non-standard methodology, and was the subject of an AN/I discussion regarding problems with Abd's edits to the poll. The second, by Hipocrite, came slightly later (and was created in response to Abd's poll) but used a standard format. The short version, then, was that it was a mess, with both Abd and Hipocrite very much at the center.

As to the specifics:

  • WMC's only content edit while the page was protected was to revert the article back to a state prior to the edit warring, as suggested by GoRight. WMC made no content changes to the article other than this revert. Prior to this Abd had vocally argued against the version that was initially protected, accusing Hipocrite of gaming the system.
  • WMC subsequently banned both Abd and Hipocrite from the article and talk page for one month, dependent on their behaviour, and then WMC lifted the page protection. Hipocrite accepted the ban, Abd did not.
  • Abd announced that he would defy the ban so that he could appeal any subsequent block, or, if WMC chose not to block him, demonstrate that the ban did not hold. This, he argued, would limit any disruption. In response, Enric Naval raised the issue at AN/I. The resulting discussion endorsed the ban (full disclosure: I !voted to support it), but it was cut short before support emerged for Abd, as Abd asked that the discussion be closed and stated that he would agree to the ban.
  • As described, Abd subsequently made a minor edit to Cold fusion, reverted it, and was blocked by WMC. I see no reason not to assume good faith here on Abd's part, but WMC's response should probably be considered in light of prior events.
  • WMC later unbanned Hipocrite after Hipocrite made guarantees about his editing. WMC has not chosen to unban Abd, and Abd has been unable to receive confirmation that the AN/I ban has expired from the closing admin (due to a wikibreak).

In short, WMC banned two problematic editors on opposing sides from the Cold fusion article, although he had no problems with them continuing with mediation on the subject. One accepted the ban, and it was subsequently lifted, the other continued to dispute it. WMC's curt responses didn't help things, and it may well be better to have clarification on when Abd can return to editing the article, but in general I believe that WMC's actions were reasonable.

Bilby (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Jehochman: The age of editors here seems completely irrelevant to this discussion. Let's stick to issues regarding the case. - Bilby (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to Abd: My understanding was that this request was in relation to WMC's ban of Abd. That suggests two main issues: were Abd's actions on Cold Fusion sufficiently disruptive to warrant a ban (and subsequent block), and was WMC's prior involvement such that he shouldn't have been the one to impose it. Given that, I can't see the relevance of including a laundry list of other editors, unless the intent is to look wider at the whole cold fusion issue, and this seems unwise. - Bilby (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Coppertwig

I suggest that the Committee open this case to examine whether there has been inappropriate use of tools while involved. As an editor of Cold fusion, I had been considering objecting to WMC's edit to the protected page, but didn't find time to study the diffs before the page was unprotected.

Note that when Abd was blocked by WMC, Abd had clearly stated that he was not going to defy the ban. Editing one character for the purpose of fixing a broken link and immediately self-reverting was intended as a non-disruptive action, not a defiance of the ban, and was well within what WMC had indicated as acceptable from banned editors. WMC's blocking for a harmless edit is even more unjustifiable given that WMC had (as I understand it) given IAR as the reason for the ban.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that even if uninvolved, an admin doesn't normally have the authority to create a ban by themselves. They can threaten to block for continued disruptive behaviour, but not threaten to block for harmless or productive edits to a page.

Reply to Mathsci
I disagree with many of your statements. Abd works to find and respect consensus. In disputes about notability of material within fringe topics, we mustn't assume the deletionists are necessarily always right. Steven Krivit has been referred to as a "leading authority" on cold fusion in a press release from the American Chemical Society. I'm a scientist and Abd has never shown contempt for me; in fact, I don't remember ever seeing Abd show contempt for anyone. I think you're totally misunderstanding Abd if you think calling WMC "Dr. Connolley" is a sign of contempt. It's a sign of respect, as it also was when I called him that. (He had objected to being called "Bill".) Abd was invited to participate in the cold fusion mediation and has been participating in it. The use of secondary sources may be a valid topic of disagreement; no need to call it "misuse". Please AGF re Abd's motives in opening this request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Coren and Casliber
Well said. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

I've met Abd in real life. He's a thoughtful, considerate individual in my view. I think he deserves more assumption of good faith and tolerance. He is prolix, while I am terse, but we still manage to get along. Tolerance is one of the keys to civility. Jehochman 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It might be exciting and educational for each participant in this discussion to volunteer their age (only if they wish to). I'm 41. Jehochman 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Any clerk who removed my question and any replies will be given a large enough piece of my mind that my writing quality will drop noticeably. The reason for me asking is to demonstrate that we have a diverse community of editors. Some are young and easily adapt to wiki ways. Others are older (and occasionally wiser), but don't quite grasp new fangled technology so easily. We have people from all over the world with different levels of education. Often, these factors combine to create situations where good faith people on both sides fight with each other. I am begging you all for more tolerance and less vitriol. Jehochman 03:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Protonk

Jehochman, I disagree. It might be educational for everyone to act their age. I find AbD to be intelligent, forgiving and gentle as well. He's probably a tremendous person. But I don't think he is in the right here and I don't think that we are missing out on something by not having met him. I don't think that page banning people from CF is beyond WMC's remit and frankly I'm prepared to step in and page ban people should arbcom disagree with me. Protonk (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

I think this case merits a bit of a look. Abd's well intentioned attempts to interpret policy, most recently banning policy, seem to go horribly awry. I understand that he may believe he is acting as an advocate, but his methods leave a lot to be desired, such as the tendency to discount opinions that don't agree with his, the walls of text that usually include disparaging remarks about others or the wikilawyering to such an extreme that assumptions of good faith are sorely stretched. Abd's years of community management likely give him a lot of insight into how things might be improved here, but he needs to find a way to impart those while working within the community structure instead of trying to win by attrition. Shell 06:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Crohnie

I will make this short but I don't see why this has been taken to arbcom. Well I do and I have been keeping an eye out for this since Abd said he was going to take WMC to arbcom and I knew he would just like he did with JzG. It's posts like these that made me know to look for it at arbcom, the request is coming. I think these post says more about what people are saying about things here. Read it, it's long but I think this post says a lot to anyone who is listening (the second dif). When these issues have been brought up at the boards I think the community did a good job asking the right questions and being patient enough to hear everything prior to doing anything. I don't think anything has be done that was too drastic and having a formal case here will only be another method for the lawyer in you to be heard. I think this belongs to the community, I think it should stay with the community until the community itself says they have enough or can't deal with it. I am surprised though to see so many arbitrators who have already accepted this case and without hearing from the community. So let there be a case, it's seems to be what Abd wants, the arbitrators appear to want this. I just wanted to be on record if it matters anymore, that the community should be allowed to deal with these matters first. Well thanks for listening, carry on I guess, I am really disappointed by this, --CrohnieGal 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to the others, I am 53. We are a vast community with different kinds of people which I personally love. I would really be happy if this case was put away or someone pointed out to me the urgency of this matter to take it from the community. Thanks, more about me can be seen at my users page too. --CrohnieGal 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GoRight

I was preparing a list of objective evidence to include here but the list is becoming too long for this venue. I will continue that task if this case is taken up.

I urge the committee to take up this case on the specific grounds requested by User:Abd, namely the issue of the use of the appropriate use of administrative tools. I do this not because of the administrator involved in this case but because of the importance of the issue. This is consistent with my similar support with respect to JzG as well.

In my experience User:Abd has consistently shown himself to be thoughtful, deliberate, and mindful of policy. He does have a tendency to be overly prolix but this is not, or at least should not be, a crime. His writing tends to expound on the full details of any subject as a means of being precise in his meaning. He actively tries to not leave things open to subjective interpretation. This too is not, or at least should not be considered to be, a bad thing. Being precise and complete is essential to any discussion of importance.

I personally will not take any stand on whether wikipedia user WMC's use of administrative tools was appropriate, or not. I do intend to provide a list of objective evidence that I believe is relevant to this case should it be taken up and nothing more. I trust the committee to weigh such evidence fairly and to come to an appropriate determination in this case.

As an opening statement I will say that I am generally a supporter of User:Abd in these matters. I believe that he takes such matters seriously and that he truly has the best interests of the project in mind. Some here seem to be criticizing User:Abd for bringing this to the arbitration committee so quickly. Others seem to argue that User:Abd does not listen to feedback with respect to the use of WP:DR. I say that these two perspectives are at odds with one another. If anything the committee's feedback to User:Abd seems to have been that he should minimize disruption, and that he should not drag things out but should instead escalate more quickly than he has previously. I believe that this case is a fine example of his taking that very sound advice.

To the extent that WMC's banning of both User:Abd and User:Hipocrite has caused disruption and drama, that disruption and drama was caused by others and not by User:Abd, IMHO. The ANI discussion that lead to a community consensus (although perhaps not entirely made up of uninvolved editors) is a good example. That discussion was brought there by one of User:Abd's detractors, User:Enric Naval, not by User:Abd. In that case User:Abd sought to minimize the disruption by asking for an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion with an acknowledgment that he would accept the 1 month page ban that had been discussed there based on the comments presented there. The entire episode was an over reaction to User:Abd's assertion that wikipedia user WMC's declaration of a ban was improper and that he did not accept it. He had done nothing to violate it, however, when User:Enric Naval decided to open the ANI discussion.

I had initially supported wikipedia user WMC's imposition of a ban as being a temporary cooling off period which he had stated would last approximately one month. In light of the fact that WMC has since lifted User:Hipocrite's ban in response to a request from User:Hipocrite in which he clearly declared that he had no desire to edit Cold Fusion moving forward. In light of the fact that WMC took no action against User:Hipocrite when he subsequently resumed editing of Cold Fusion only one day after the ban had been lifted. In light of the fact that WMC actually blocked Abd for making edits that explicitly respected the ban (i.e. he self-reverted). And most especially in light of the fact the WMC continues to assert his control over User:Abd's editing of the Cold Fusion well beyond his initial indication of a one month duration and the one month duration explicitly sanctioned in the ANI discussion, I believe that the committee should take up this case to address the specific issues and events related to WMC's issuance of the initial ban and his continued assertion thereof.

Disclosures:

--GoRight (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses to User:William M. Connolley:

  • "My unban of H was not conditional on his not editing CF. I've said that already somewhere, but I forget where." - Without bothering to look up the diff I hereby acknowledge that I was so informed. I do not claim that it was a condition of the unban, per se, but I still believe that it is significant to this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "GR's "disclosure" somehow omits Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight#Outside View by Abd" - Quite right, thanks for pointing that out. I should have thought to add it but I was confident that my general support of User:Abd was already widely known and I did mention "As an opening statement I will say that I am generally a supporter of User:Abd in these matters.". The case you cite is part of the reason why I have formed this opinion, among many others. Regardless, I apologize for the oversight which has now been corrected. As I have also stated I do not intend to weigh in on whether your conduct is appropriate, or not, but I do intend to provide relevant factual information pertinent to the discussion. I have also acknowledged that I supported your initial actions as a cooling off period even though I now disagree with your continued assertion of control. --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Raul654

I'd strongly encourage the arbcom, if they decide to hear this case, to take a carefull look at Abd's behavior. He is a frequent meatpuppet for banned users (having done so for Jed Rothwell on numerous occasions, and more recently, for Scibaby). When warned about his behavior, his first reaction is to try to claim the administrator who warned him was in a dispute, and therefore unable to enforce Misplaced Pages policy. (He has been making this claim frequently with regard to WMC, and recently tried to pull the same stunt on me after I warned Abd over his meatpuppetry on behalf of banned sockpuppeteer Scibaby). He frequently makes up false claims about policy out of whole cloth, and has in the past used breaching experiments to avoid clear-cut rules. (Like editing a page he was banned from, then self reverting). I think a parole - one which allows admins to unilaterlaly impose further sactions as the need arises - is in order. Raul654 (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Maunus

I have recently had my first on wiki encounter with Abd on the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Banning Policy. I had found what I saw as flaws in the policy and attempted to start a discussion on it. Abd was among the only users to give it a thought that the policy might actually be improvable - other editors brushed of my concerns or even ridiculed me for raising the question. I don't think that Abd should be criticized for being interested in policy or for partaking in policy discussions. I think it is natural that some editors dedicate more time to such concerns than others. I also don't think it should be problematic that editors try to scrutinize the ways in which administrators enforce blocks and bans, requiring them to explain and justify their actions. To me this is part of an open, democratic community with a transparent power structure. To me it seems that some administrators see this as a problem and would prefer that nobody ever questions their actions. I can understand this but would encourage administrators to instead see this as a welcome incentive to do their very best at making sure that policies are enforced justly and that their administrative decisions are always based in good reason and community consensus. In short my view on this case is that Abd has made himself unpopular among a large group of administrators by posing annoying questions. My stance is that those questions are necessary to keep wikipedia an open, democratic and transparent community. I would urge the ArbCom to keep focus on the side of the argument that has an administrator possibly using administrative tools in an editing dispute in which he himself is involved. In this light whether or not Abd is a model editor is not really relevant - the rules about what administrators can and cannot do with their tools are there for the protection of the entire community not just to protect those editors who are well liked by everyone. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification (October 2009)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Questions by 99.27.133.215

What is the "purpose of Misplaced Pages" referred to in the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy? The excerpt in question reads:

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

In particular, is the purpose of Misplaced Pages congruent with this statement?

" needs to conform to the encyclopedia's reliable source criteria, not some measure of how much popular press individual articles in the peer reviewed literature have received, or any other arbitrary exception to the rules. There shouldn't be any exceptions to the reliable source criteria, not for articles on physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, religion, politics, voting methods, race, or any other subject. If there's a controversy, it should be settled in accordance with the best peer-reviewed secondary sources, not the opinion of persistent editors with an axe to grind, not by persistent editors with a conflict of interest, not by paid editors, and not by anyone who isn't qualified and willing to review the best peer-reviewed literature available on the subject. That's what we mean by 'the purpose of Misplaced Pages.'"

If not, in what way does the purpose of Misplaced Pages diverge from that description? Thank you for your consideration of these questions. 99.27.133.215 (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

Are we going to have to deal with "new user" IP's alledging a history of malfeasance on this article even after sanctions have been declared on it? Is there anyone brave enough to actually enforce the sanctions placed on the article? Hipocrite (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

Two observations...

1) I suspect that, by Purpose of Misplaced Pages, ArbCom means exactly what they have said under that title in numerous previous decisions, namely:

The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

2) Hipocrite raises an important issue. Since the case ended, there have been several IP users suddenly appear, making comments showing a clear familiarity with WP processes and with the case. Whilst it is theoretically possible that he / she / they have been lurking and have chosen this moment to contribute, it seems to me to be much more likely that one or more existing users are choosing to post anonymously. This is seriously unhelpful to the goal of high-quality content development. If there is not already basis to take steps to address the situation (whether with semi-protection or checkuser or other) under the discretionary sanctions, then perhaps ArbCom might pass a quick motion to rectify the situation.

By the way, I would like to register my appreciation to John Vandenberg for his helpful post at talk:cold fusion removing the resurrected section from the archives. EdChem (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by William M. Connolley

Can someone please CU this IP? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by wholly uninvolved roux

Lo! Forsooth! 'Tis the sound of ducks.

I trust ArbCom won't waste their time with this. → ROUX ₪ 13:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Question by MastCell

This is obviously not a request for clarification, but a continued litigation of the case. But since we're here... could I ask for clarification on how the sudden influx of dynamic IPs advancing an agenda should be dealt with? It seems that the discretionary sanctions should simply the handling of this sort of editing in spirit, but they are quite legalistic in letter. I do think this latest iteration of the same old problem should be nipped in the bud, but I'm not ready to go to WP:AE only to hear that a given IP address had not been formally notified of the discretionary sanctions. Or maybe I should just leave the poor Wikipedians who have to actually try to edit this article to their fate, but I thought I'd ask first. MastCell  23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • "Misplaced Pages is an online encyclopedia". That's the purpose. Everything else is a means to an end, and as flexible as it needs to be in order to reach that purpose. Being an encyclopedia implies that accuracy, reliability and (by conscious choice in the case of Misplaced Pages) neutrality are important objectives. One "fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages" when one compromises those objectives in the pursuit of a purpose other than making an encyclopedia; therefore things like advocacy, evangelism, and vandalism have no place here.

    The quoted statement is, fundamentally, not inaccurate but looses sight of the purpose (the encyclopedia) by focusing blindly on one aspect of the means. — Coren  13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Per Coren. Articles can be semi protected from IP disruption. IPs that are likely socks can be reported to SPI. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • maybe I should just leave the poor Wikipedians who have to actually try to edit this article to their fate - please do not do that, especially if anyone intends to do that to prove a point. There are plenty of ways to deal with this. If you are not familiar with the ways to deal with such things, please follow the advice given by Rlevse, though the IPs in question seem to be editing the talk page, not the article (semi-protecting talk pages should only be done in cases of extreme disruption). If anyone posting to this clarification is involved in the editing of the article, please deal with this by posting to a noticeboard to get uninvolved editors and admins aware of the situation. And if new editors turn up who have experience of other areas of Misplaced Pages, please take the time to explain things to them and treat them with more patience than you would a new editor or IP editor who you suspect of pushing an agenda. Agree with Coren on the clarification of the main point. Would also like to note that, as far as I can tell, no talk page FAQ has been written or started yet. If there is a FAQ, then new editors posting to the talk page can be pointed to that, instead of the lengthy and chaotic archives of the cold fusion talk page, or (worse) repeating the same arguments over and over again. Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • One of the reasons I like and use semi-protection. I think that it is warranted here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification (January 2010)

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Initiated by Abd (talk) at 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Statement by Abd

This restriction, prohibited me from "participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s)." This remedy was taken from a proposal by Thatcher, and was based on a claim that I frequently intervened in disputes, but without any finding or examples showing that my interventions had been nonconstructive. I did not notice this proposal during the case, it appeared at the end, and I'd stopped reading the Workshop page by that time. I never responded to it. The principle would seem to chill neutral intervention, when that's exactly what is missing, too often, and I'd been successful with such interventions, the community eventually confirming my positions in many cases, and a number of sitting arbitrators know this to be true. In any case, without examples of disruptive interventions, I don't know what behavior, specifically, is being prevented.

The immediate occasion is this statement on the case page. I was definitely involved with the situation under the Climate Change request. My view is that this led William M. Connolley to take an opportunity to ban me, which explains his otherwise puzzling behavior as being based on a grudge. I presented evidence, expanded at , on WMC's wheel-warring at Global warming as part of the subject case. When I'd worked on Global warming, I encountered the very problems that led to the current request, and can provide diffs if needed.

Therefore I considered myself already involved in the substance, hence mentor approval was not needed, even though I was not a formally named party yet. I was surprised, then, to see this objection from Mathsci appear on my Talk. As I have knowledge in depth of the underlying situation, I believed it my obligation to testify, in any case, so I declined to comply. Apparently seeing the discussion, MastCell then filed an Arbitration enforcement request, and a request to a clerk to remove my comment. Mathsci commented extensively,, adding confusion (incorrect about the history, apparently assuming I'd misrepresented it), and continuing after the post had been removed and it was moot.

Then WMC made a gratuitous accusation on AN. When I briefly replied to it, he threatened me with being blocked for the reply, and he removed the reply himself, which is old WMC behavior, matching that during the case.

Mathsci did consent to the closure of the Arbitration Enforcement request, after both MastCell and I agreed on that, but the request was re-opened by WMC, based on the AN incident. This is cute: troll for comment by attacking an editor, then assert the reply as a ban violation. I've noticed WMC's behavior go downhill since his desysopping.

The sanction is being used in an attempt to prevent me from participation where I am already involved, either historically or through a current accusation, and it is being used as a cover to harass me. If the my original statement had been disruptive, in itself, it could have been removed by a clerk with no fuss, likewise any editor believing it to be a ban violation could have removed it without all this mess. I thought I'd send the statement directly to ArbComm by email, a minimally disruptive approach; however, the removal of my comment from AN by WMC and his reopening the AE case made me realize that more was required.

I intend a request to lift the ban, but not yet, and sound policy is to honor ArbComm decisions, even where I may disagree strongly. The mentorship proposal, which seems to have been assumed in the ban, did not pass. Editors may voluntarily take on mentorship, and without a mentorship requirement, and specifically that ArbComm approve a mentor, I would seem to be free to choose any editor willing to accept me. GoRight is, in fact, an experienced editor, one who has survived serious attempts to ban him, and he did offer to mentor me. I did not ask him in advance to approve the comment because I did not consider it violated the restriction; however, post-facto, seeing the edit and the flap, he approved it. But the substance here is not mentor/no mentor, rather what should be behind all our decisions is not compliance with technicalities, but the purpose of all of it, the project. If my statement was disruptive, in itself, aside from the ban, I should have been warned or blocked for that, but, instead, the only objection was purely technical. Wikilawyering, in a word, to avoid the presentation of evidence.

ArbComm may decide to approve a mentor, resolving the ambiguity here. I know that arbitrators are aware of a highly experienced and presumably acceptable editor who agreed to mentor me during the case. Perhaps they will allow this mentorship. GoRight was only offering his support ad-interim. I have not asked permission to file this request, since I'm clearly an "originating party" here.

I appreciate clarification, as well, of the intention behind the restriction, with guidance as to how to honor it where I believe I am, in substance, a party to a dispute, even if not formally named. I put a great deal of effort into the Global warming situation, and AN reports don't formally name disputants. If I am working with editor A on an article, and editor B appears and attacks editor A, and B goes to AN/I, and I have knowledge of the situation, am I prohibited from commenting because editor B did not mention me? Or suppose he does mention me, as WMC mentioned me on AN?

Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly William M. Connolley, and Mathsci's pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • LessHeard vanU: Thanks. The remaining clarification needed would address situations where I have a pre-existing involvement with an issue, where I am not an uninvolved passer-by "meddling." Later, I'll ask to address the problem of where I'm neutral, uninvolved, but have evidence to present that might be overlooked. I can present it off-wiki, but wouldn't it be better to present it directly? Maybe not!
  • Mathsci leads with a claim that I've misrepresented various users, but I noticed little variance between my sketchier account, above, and his more detailed account, below, except he adds some mind-reading and speculation as fact. I did discuss mentorship with GoRight before, but did not consult with him before filing the comment in the climate change RfAr, so "pre-decided arrangement" would be an overstatement. Mathsci correctly reports Ryan's comment, which puzzled me, is Ryan in charge of RfAr? I thought the arbitrators were. The only mention of "vendetta" is here, just above. It means that Mathsci has an axe to grind and is grinding it. As to "cabal," what I called the "cabal" in my case was roughly the same set of editors now accused of ownership of the global warming articles. The two cases are closely connected, which could easily be shown. "Cabal" and "vendetta" are not related. Vendetta is personal. Why was that relatively brief statement in the Climate Change RfAr worth all this email to an arbitrator, administrator, an AE request, etc.? I'd say it's obvious. Vendetta.
  • Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes.
  • Durova, as usual, hits the nail on the head.
  • MastCell's comment is disappointing. I had no intention to test the limits, I was surprised at all this fuss. Sure, I might have interpreted the ban more tightly, but I have difficulty keeping something in mind that I don't understand, and I don't understand the ban, why it was placed, so I discounted it, thinking that ArbComm couldn't possibly have wanted me to refrain from making a comment where I was so involved.
  • General comment about mentor. I have asked Fritzpoll to be my mentor. He had suggested it previously, and I had accepted, but there may now be complications. I'll let Fritzpoll explain it if he considers it prudent. I did not, however, consult Fritzpoll, not imagining that consulting a mentor for the subject statement was necessary. In effect, with my statement, I consulted ArbComm, it was hardly a hidden action! --Abd (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LessHeard vanU

In that Abd is disallowed by Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Abd editing restriction (existing disputes) from commenting in areas where he is not an originating source of the dispute, without consultation with a mentor, I consider ArbCom may be inclined to consider either extending Abd's parole to instances where either WMC (or Mathsci) unilaterally invoke Abd or the original dispute in unrelated matters, or require WMC (and Mathsci) to refrain from invoking either Abd or the dispute in unrelated matters. It seems to me that the latter would be preferable, in that it might mean less requests for clarification. (Per Abd I am including Mathsci as a party to the original decision, and not commenting on their actions subsequently).

I should note that my response to WMC's comments at AN alluded to WP:NPA and that WMC's later response to me appeared to disregard that they had not earlier commented upon the content User:GoRight's proposal or that I had neither - that I commented to caution WMC for poor faith commentary. It may be outside of the ArbComs remit, but I am concerned that WMC's behaviour is becoming erratic and suggest they may benefit from being required to withdraw further from interactions with Abd. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

Abd has as usual misrepresented various users. His account of the recent disruptive actions of GoRight and himself does not bear much relation to actual events. Here is my understanding of what happened (New Year's Eve commitments in California do not permit any further detail at this stage, diffs can be provided later if necessary - I've written this in haste without a word count):

  • Abd added a statement to the present RfAr of Tedder.
  • I advised him on his talk page that, since he had not been involved in editing global warming articles in 2009, this probably contravened the editing restrictions placed on him by ArbCom in September following his 3 month ban and that he might consider voluntarily removing the statement himself. I later explained that ArbCom had not recommended a mentor (2 separate proposals were not carried) and that the mention of "mentor" in the editing restrictions was an oversight.
  • I contacted MastCell by email.
  • I contacted NYB by email.
  • Abd and GoRight, in what apparently was a prearranged decision, claimed that ArbCom had imposed the fllowing editing restriction: that Abd had to find a mentor and this mentor could waive any ArbCom editing restriction at his discretion. Apparently GoRight was to be the interim mentor of Abd's choice.
  • MastCell, without having read my email, but having seen my post to Abd and his reply on Abd's talk page, raised the problem of Abd's RfAr statement at WP:AE.
  • MastCell also posted at the Clerks Noticeboard and I posted at Ryan's talk page.
  • Ryan removed Abd's RfAr statement.
  • Rlevse and Coren explained that Abd could not be involved in a possible future ArbCom case on Climate Change.
  • MastCell clarified the editing restriction to Abd.
  • GoRight posted a motion on the RfAr requesting Abd to be included as a party claiming that he was actively involved in WP articles on climate change becuase of his involvement in GoRight's own RfC in 2008.
  • I posted a query about this on the clerk's noticeboard.
  • Ryan explained that Abd could not participate in the RfAr or a future ArbCom case, regardless of GoRight's proposed motion.
  • A few hours later, Abd requested on Tedder's talk page to be included by him as a party.
  • Abd and GoRight started writing posts, presenting Abd as a victim, with extraordinary statements about a vendetta (his new phoney word that presumably replaces cabal).
  • Abd opened this request.

All discussions have taken place on Abd's talk page, Tedder's talk page, the clerk's notice board and WP:AE.

Abd could have asked for clarification in a straightforward and discreet way, by email to any arbitrator. When I initially suggested this on his talk page, his reply was, "I'm not going to bother an arbitrator with this, their time is precious." Instead he has entered into a WP:BATTLEGROUND spirit, wikilawyering in an unreasonable way about his editing restrictions, even when two arbitrators, one clerk and one senior administrator had given the same unnuanced interpretation of these restrictions. I do not understand his use of the word "vendetta", just as I did not understand his use of the word "cabal". That GoRight is unsuitable as a mentor is not really something which seems open to debate, despite all of Abd's arguments to the contrary.

Abd has broken the terms of his editing restrictions twice (on RfAr and again by posting on WP:AN). His actions have been disruptive. He has attempted to deflect attention from himself by engaging in a smear campaign against his critics. In my case he is attacking an editor in good standing who has no involvement at all in any climate change matters on WP.

  • Ambiguity in editing restriction Since the two separate votes on mentorship did not pass, was the mention of a mentor in the editing restriction an oversight in the redrafting of the final decision?
  • Desired outcome of clarification Please could the terms of Abd's editing restrictions be clarified by ArbCom so that any future repetition of this disruption and intensified wikilawyering over multiple wikipedia pages can be avoided.

NYB indicated to me in an email response that he hoped that MastCell's WP:AE request would clarify matters without ArbCom involvement. Before Abd's surprise public request here, I assumed that things had been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. I apologize that further time has to be spent on what should have been an entirely straightforward matter. Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to all! Mathsci (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

LHVU has given a slightly muddle-headed statement. I am not in dispute with Abd, any more than MastCell is. Both of us have been involved in pointing out Abd's contravention of his editing restrictions. Abd has just come off a three month ArbCom ban and so far has shown no sign of returning to normal editing patterns, quite the contrary. As far as I am aware, I am a good faith editor in good standing. LHVU should not repeat Abd's innuendos without checking facts for himself. Abd's account and interpretation are not accurate. His misleading use of the word "vendetta" could not be supported by one diff. Just like the nonsense he wrote about a "cabal". Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I had planned to request clarification and then saw the present request.

There are some loose ends from the Abd-WMC case that need to be tied up. In particular, Remedies 3.2 and 3.6 refer to a mentor but the decision gives no details on how the mentor is to be chosen. It would be helpful if the Committee could provide such details; for example, whether the choice of mentor is solely at Abd’s discretion or if the Committee views itself as having a role in the choice and terms of the mentorship. Abd is of course free to choose whomever he likes as an informal mentor but the question here is the choice of a formal mentor in light of the Remedies. Abd recently has chosen a mentor and the mentor has stated that he is "as official as any mentor is required to be". This mentor has assumed the capacity to authorize Abd's actions as required in Remedy 3.2. Clarification of the Committee's intent with regard to mentorship in this case would help forestall drama.

Statement by Durova

Mentorship is not a panacea. It has its place within Misplaced Pages and stands its best chance of success when it happens informally. For nearly five years Misplaced Pages's Arbitration Committee let mentorships occur informally. For slightly over one year ArbCom has taken a more active role in mentorship, using attractive buzzwords such as "structured" and "empowered" that have caused resounding failures. I know of no instance where mentorship has succeeded as a formal arbitration remedy: formal ArbCom interference tends to turn the mentor into a political football and shifts the focus from long range improvement to the equivalent of a traffic cop.

To the new arbitrators: I used to mentor five people. One of them reformed after a long string of edit warring blocks to become a sysop on this site and four other WMF sites. He has become an OTRS volunteer and he serves on the Arbitration Committee of another wiki. Another became a featured content contributor and hasn't been blocked since 2008. There have been other successes. Yet my objections to the 2009 Committee's direction were so strong that I ceased accepting new mentorships and resigned from existing ones.

The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was phantom mentorship: writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background. Durova 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: MastCell's statement, his cynicism is a case in point for why mentorship becomes so difficult as an element of arbitration decisions. When a mentorship occurs informally the focus is on its results: does behavior actually improve? Some editors choose mentors well and others choose badly. That shakes itself out. The one essential element that can't be forced is mutual trust. My suggestion is to wish Abd well with his new mentor because that appears to be the only mentor available to him, and either remove mentorship from the formal remedy or rename it, because what it appears the decision was seeking was not a mentor but a screener to preapprove specific kinds of posts. The latter might be a good idea but it isn't mentorship. Durova 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

Abd is testing the boundaries of his editing restriction, as he has with every previous editing restriction under which he's been placed. It's what he does. I can't for the life of me understand how this particular restriction is in any way ambiguous, but here we are.

It would be nice if WMC and others would never mention Abd again. It would be even nicer if Abd would just stay out of disputes where he isn't the originating party, which is after all what the sanction insists he do. No amount of tortured logic can make Abd into an "originating party" in the current Arbitration request, because he isn't one. This seems like a case where clear boundaries have been set, and are being tested. Ball's in your court.

I find it hard to characterize GoRight's sudden self-appointment as Abd's "mentor" in any but extremely cynical terms, but then I think it was a pretty cynical undertaking in the first place, and sort of makes a mockery of the idea of mentorship. If the language about mentorship from the previous decision could be tidied up, and GoRight's "mentorship" addressed, that would probably help. MastCell  03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoRight

Any references I made to it having been discussed that I might fill the role of Abd's mentor were references to the discussions that took place during the original Arbcom case. Abd and I had no pre-arranged agreement related to his comment in the climate change request. Indeed, if we had such an agreement it would have made more sense to formalize a mentorship agreement BEFORE he made that comment, not after. So MathSci's implication of impropriety in this respect rings hollow as far as I can tell. In any event I dispute that any such impropriety or prior agreement regarding Abd's comment at Arbcom took place.

I have always made it clear that I was only assuming the role on an interim basis until more formal arrangements were made. This was necessitated by the current climate change request submitted by Tedder so that Abd could participate in a case where he has gained invaluable insights based on his review of the parties involved in my RfC which, unsurprisingly, are essentially the same parties in that case. --GoRight (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Given that the language allowing mentor approval is being removed and we are already gathered together, I would ask the Arbiters to consider adding language to the sanction which allows an existing party in a case to specifically request Abd's assistance. In my RfC his assistance was invaluable given his thorough and fastidious attention to detail as well as his clear understanding of Misplaced Pages policy. New or inexperienced users would benefit greatly from such assistance. I further request that it not be considered a violation of his sanctions to place a single neutrally worded offer of assistance on someone's talk page. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

  1. This motion seems to be the correct way to proceed. Cheers to the committee.
  2. The mentorship thing in the remedy was just a leftover that should have been removed in the final draft.
  3. I don't think that GoRight is an appropiate general mentor for Abd for learning how to edit better, but that's a different topic that should be treated separate. What is on-topic here is the mentorship regarding the Arbcom remedy, and GoRight is absolutely unsuited for deciding when Abd can skip that restriction.
  4. I have refrained from citing Abd as an example (for example, in the ban discussion of an editor that made very long comments with OR, where I was tempted to compare Abd with this editor), and I have refrained from citing Abd as an example of anything. This was in order to avoid giving Abd any excuse to start a long off-topic tirade about how he was unjustly treated by Arbcomm/Cabal/WMC/etc. WMC, Matschi, whoever feels the temptation to refer to Abd, please learn to do the same thing and never mention Abd in topics that are not directly about him.

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Issues with Abd were identified in two arbitration cases. In both cases the principal issue identified was a strong tendency to beat dead horses. GoRight has much the same problem and is already mired in long-running disputes on climate change, which brings a near-inevitability of interaction with WMC as an expert in the field; GoRight also has long-running dispurtes with WMC. Bottom line: GoRight is not an appropriate mentor; if anything the two of them are likely to reinforce each other's worst traits and both end up banned. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This is largely our fault for not adjusting the implementation notes and final wording. Motion below to correct the oversight, which should clarify the matter. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I am naturally recusing from this matter due my proposed mentorship of Abd prior to my becoming an Arb. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Response to GoRight - I would not support such an amendment, as it provides Abd a "back door" into discussions that he has no business being in as soon as any editor says "what does Abd think?". The original restriction was clear enough, and yet we're here being asked to clarify what it meant; I believe given this, such a back door would be frequently used, rendering the restriction null. Hersfold 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Motion

Remedy 3.2 "Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)" is revised to read:

"Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls."

Support
  1. No mentorship remedy passed, mooting the mentor(s) clause. The inoperative clause is removed. When a remedy is of an undetermined duration, it is normal practice to explicitly define the duration as "indefinite". Also, please note that this is somewhat broader and complete than the standing restriction. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. With trivial copy-edit (added "pages" after "any formal or informal dispute resolution").  Roger Davies 11:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  3. Support closing this loophole. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  4. Support, while noting that this does not restrict Abd from forming an informal mentorship arrangement with whoever may be suitable, but any informal mentorship should be openly disclosed. Also noting here that there is nothing stopping any editor from seeking mentorship for themselves, even those that consider themselves experienced Wikipedians that don't need mentorship. Being mentored is not always (and often isn't) an admission of failings, but more a recognition of a need and potential to improve. Anyone reading this and thinking it doesn't apply to them should think again - this applies to everyone who may lack experience in a particular area, or who may lack the ability to comport themselves with civility and collegiality. Working with someone who has more experience can help any editor. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  5. Support. Fixes overlooked hanging chad; as Carcharoth mentions, this certainly doesn't prohibit Abd from working with a mentor or any other actions he may wish to use to improve his editing and interactions while at Misplaced Pages. Shell 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  6. Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  7. Support. KnightLago (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  8. Mailer Diablo approves this amendment. - 13:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  9. Sorry for late vote. Hersfold 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Recused from all matters Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  2. As Steve Fritzpoll (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrator discussion
Clerk notes