Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shot info (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 21 July 2009 (→Canvassing by Short Brigade Harvester Boris?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion on topic bans

Admins can topic-ban individual editors without prior arbitration guidance, because I've done it. The most recent case is here, with the notification to the editor here. 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 Cold Fusion, the ban was placed first, and then posted for discussion to the Admin noticeboard here, 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.

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. Thatcher 11:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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. - Bilby (talk) 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 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! Fritzpoll (talk) 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 WP:AN or other such venues. I've been doing it since at least 2007, and my sense is that they've generally worked out well.

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. MastCell  18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What Tatcher and MastCell say. IMHO, the banning policy page should be updated to fit reality. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring. For the long winded version see .

Note that Misplaced Pages:Banning policy is in the middle of an edit war right now , so don't trust any particular version of it to be sane William M. Connolley (talk) 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 come participate. --GoRight (talk) 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. Thatcher 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. --GoRight (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since User:William M. Connolley has brought up the topic of on-going work to improve WP:Banning policy and apparently wishes to paint me as acting inappropriately somehow during the course of this deliberation, let me simply make a few points in response:

1. I am not the only one that has edit warred on that page. If making a single revert (my only edit to the page) to point User:Sarah 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.
2. The evolution of the WP:Banning policy 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.
3. Finally and most importantly, the changes being discussed there are related to the distinction between indefinitely blocked users and community banned users. Since User:Abd 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 User:William M. Connolley'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. --GoRight (talk) 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 WP:BAN. 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). Shell 12:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of admins editing protected pages

There is nothing wrong a priori with admins editing protected pages. Under the normal course of events, editors who want an edit made will put the {{edit protected}} template on the talk page. This places the page in Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests 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 {{edit protected}} 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 {{edit protected}} 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:

1. Was WMC involved in a content dispute at Cold Fusion, 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?)
2. Did the edit WMC made reflect consensus among the disputing parties, or did it reflect his personal opinion on the subject.

-- Thatcher 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 William M. Connolley (talk) 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. MastCell  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. - Bilby (talk) 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. 87.254.90.247 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

With the polls going nowhere, GoRight's suggestion was to revert to the last stable version that predated the edit war, as per WP:Protection policy. 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. - Bilby (talk) 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. Hersfold 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 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 this 3RR report. 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. MastCell  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 History of prior dispute? 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. --Abd (talk) 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 Talk:Cold fusion. 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 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? --Enric Naval (talk) 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed part of the evidence to this page in my userspace. Was that enough? --Enric Naval (talk) 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). Carcharoth (talk) 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. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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 Cold fusion. 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 WP:DR. 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. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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. --Abd (talk) 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

General Question: Is there a wiki provided tool for checking word counts? --GoRight (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This script, 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). Guettarda (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I found a word counter on the web, where you copied and pasted into a box. Mathsci (talk) 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 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.) --Abd (talk) 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence#There_is_a_cabal should be notified that they are being discussed here. A quick check show that many (most?) have not been notified. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 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 Global warming (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. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The cabal

Abd asserts the existence of a cabal, going so far as to list names (). Cabal membership is determined, apparently, by disagreement with Abd. In any case, when I view this list, I see a wide range of experienced Wikipedians in good standing, many of whom have few overlapping areas of agreement or even interaction. They seem united mostly in their belief that Abd's approach to Misplaced Pages is problematic. I think this evidence actually speaks quite loudly, though perhaps not to the point initially intended. MastCell  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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 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? --Abd (talk) 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should come to the point, if any. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 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 Cold fusion 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? --Abd (talk) 00:47, 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"? MastCell  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 ADHD 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! --Abd (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Eldereft = 2over0 (2/0)

I changed username 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 here (thank you for the notification, SBHB). - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/JzG_3#Outside_view_by_Spartaz, 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. --Abd (talk) 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. Hersfold 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing by Short Brigade Harvester Boris?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In my current evidence section, 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 Short Brigade Harvester Boris, 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 Beetstra." 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. --Abd (talk) 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. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 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 WP:JURY 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? --Abd (talk) 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". Franamax (talk) 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. MastCell  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.) --Abd (talk) 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. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 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, User:John'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. Guettarda (talk) 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! --Abd (talk) 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.Woonpton (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 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." Mathsci (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The following statement is not 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. Franamax (talk) 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. --GoRight (talk) 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 here. 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. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 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 this 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 16:53 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.Woonpton (talk) 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. Hersfold 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. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 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 WP:CANVASS 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. --GoRight (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Aw...I haven't been canvassed yet and I'm on Abd's cabal list...I want IN!!!! Shot info (talk) 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. Hersfold 02:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with your helpful summary wrapping it up, I think we're done, thanks.Woonpton (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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.