Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Maunus (talk | contribs) at 15:00, 15 July 2009 (→Statement by Maunus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

• I am currently under an editing restriction which states that I am "topic-banned from William Connolley-related pages - this is not to be confused with edits regarding User:William M. Connolley" and my comments here are strictly limited to User:William M. Connolley.
• I am in User:Abd's debt (figuratively, not literally) given his support of me provided at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/GoRight#Outside View by Abd.
• I have not contributed any content that I can recall to Cold Fusion.
• I have posted at Talk:Cold Fusion, but primarily with respect to the purported but disputed community ban of Jed Rothwell as documented here.
• I have participated in the Cold Fusion Mediation subsequent to the page banning of Abd and Hipocrite from Cold Fusion.

--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)