Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

WMC temp desysop motion

• Rlevse should now recuse from this case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
  • This is ridiculous. Here Rlevse implies that WMC's ban from cold fusion is invalid [1] when this is a key aspect of the arbitration case that still hasn't been determined - presumably because its imposed by a single admin and then here [2] asserting that the ban is still in place on their own authority. This is ridiculous and makes the proposal to desyspop WMC look extremely suspect if Arbiters can't even decide from one moment to the next what Abd's status is regarding Cold Fusion. WMC isn't involved with Abd outside the CF case and then only in an admin enforcement role so are yu arguing that you can be forced to recuse from dealing with someone just because they file an arbitration case? If so, its a charter for every malcontent and troll to to take any admin to arbitration just to force them off their back. Also, shouldnt Abd be banned formally from CF for the duration of the if you are positing that WMC's ban wasn't valid. What a mess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Spartaz, I've moved your comment from the main page. If you and others post here, the arbs will read what is said here. As far as involvement goes, the very fact that we accepted the case, with WMC named as a party, and with WMC included in the title, means that the committee thinks (at first glance) that there is a case to answer. The evidence in the case may well show that not to be true, but until the case is over, Abd and WMC are very much involved in a dispute. This works both ways - Abd too needs to stop the behaviour that led to the events that led to him filing the case. Equally, Abd may be exonerated. But until the case is over, they both need to back off and concentrate on the case, and not replay the dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Updated: 16:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• That Rl should recuse is now obvious. CHL recused, with apparent intent to provide evidence, although it wasn't clear to me why William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Possibly evidence related to Scibaby range blocks if the case headed in that direction. Also due to interaction with several of the parties. Cool Hand Luke 01:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Temp desyssop of William M. Connolley" motion (Mythdon's comment)

I have not reviewed any of the evidence of the case, but let me make this one comment about the motion.

To block someone who is a party to the same arbitration case as you is, uncalled for and non-legitimate because to do so, you're not an impartial administrator as you're an involved party to the same case as the person you block. William M. Connolley should have reported to another administrator who wasn't an involved party to the case if there was a need that Abd be blocked. William M. Connolley is not uninvolved if both him/her and Abd are a party to the same case, no matter what the evidence says. Such a block is biased, beyond doubt, and can affect the case in a harmful manner, and can affect the decision being made by the committee, because the user blocked will be unable to provide their evidence during the block or able to comment on the decision proposals by other users.

William M. Connolley being a party to this case terminates the title of "uninvolved", which administrators should have before blocking users, in order to maintain impartiality. Abd and William M. Connolley are parties to this case, and therefore, they do not have the "uninvolved" title if they block one another (note that Abd is not an administrator, however). William M. Connolley blocked Abd, but was a party to the same case as Abd, and therefore, William M. Connolley should not be allowed to act.

Wizardman, who is supporting the desysop makes a good phrase with "no question". There is indeed no question that this is necessary.

Therefore, I urge the Arbitration Committee to desysop William M. Connolley, at least until the specified time comes. What are your comments? --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 16:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"I notice you've unblocked Abd. The obvious questions are: (a) why did you make no attempt to discuss this with me? and (b) given your evidence presented to the case, what makes you think you are uninvolved?" - A comment from William M. Connolley on Viridae's talk page. To ask "what makes you think you are uninvolved?" is not rightful to ask given the fact that William M. Connolley wasn't uninvolved his or herself when blocking Abd given the fact that they are both parties to the same arbitration case. William M. Connolley should not be question Viridae's uninvolvement when William M. Connolley wasn't uninvolved him or herself. --Mythdon ^{talk • contribs} 18:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth do you think he isn't allowed to ask questions? That's not how wikipedia works, and is the first step in WP:DR. Verbal chat 18:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Requested diffs

I am reposting this here as requested by Carcharoth (originally on User talk:Rlevse). Rlevse indicated that before posting his motion he had not located the diffs for the final conditions of the original page-ban and the role of Heimstern in the closing of the ANI thread, where the page-ban was approved by the community. Here are the diffs.

Here is the final exchange between Abd and WMC [3]:

“

Please reduce the ban to 30 days from the article only, and recuse yourself from further administrative involvement, and please notify Hipocrite of the ban, if you have not already done so. You hadn't last I looked. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I decline your request. I am happy to note that portions of the ban correspond to a voluntary agreement. Whilst I anticipate it lasting approximately one month, the period remains indefinite. Since the page is now unprotected, the version I chnaged it to under protection is now moot William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

”

Here are the diffs where Heimstern clarifies the closure of the ANI discussion. [4][5] [6]

Here is what Heimstern said on July 19 when quizzed by Abd about the page bans [7]:

“ I am releasing all responsibility for this ban at this point, as I never intended to take on any responsibility for it at all. I believed myself to be making a purely procedural close of a discussion; in that belief it appears I was mistaken. It appears ArbCom will likely handle this, so I imagine it shouldn't be a problem for me not to get further involved in this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ”

Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He has clarified it further in 9 August [8][9]. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Having read all of the above links it seems that the bottom line would be:

1. Heimstern clearly believed a the time that he wrote the close that the duration of WMC's ban was 1 month.
2. Heimstern considered his closing to be a procedural matter and he wasn't intending to compete with WMC over administration of the ban that WMC had imposed.
3. Heimstern noted clearly in his close at AN/I: "Abd has indicated that he will abide by the ban, not per the original banning administrator, but per the discussion/straw poll/whatever it was here."

Whether Heimstern accepted a role as the administrator of the ban, or not, is not really relevant. What is relevant is that prior to this point Abd had been disputing WMC's administrative ban as being improper and illegitimate and that this is the first time any community discussion of a ban had taken place. As Heimstern's close clearly indicates, it was evident to Heimstern that Abd was making a clear distinction between his acceptance of WMC's administrative ban and what he, Abd, was now accepting as a community ban based on the discussion that had taken place. None of this requires Heimstern to accept on-going responsibility for the community ban that was thus formed, but it does provide a uninvolved perspective on the situation as it existed at the time the close was written. --GoRight (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

True enough. In which case it is reasonable to assume that WMC's conditions might still stand, as Heimstern's "1 month" was based on a misunderstanding of WMC's terms and, as you say, Heimstern wasn't trying to compete with WMC for administration. Thus at the point of the second block, we were still in a situation of Abd disputing WMC's ban, WMC believing that it held, other editors going either way, and no announcement from ArbCom one way or the other. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidential basis

Is there an evidential basis for substantive ongoing harm to Wikipedia that would merit temporary removal of sysop powers from William M. Connolley? I ask this because none has been presented on the evidence pages. Such motions, in the absence of an actual removal of sysop powers due to misconduct, are rare. In view of the clear community consensus on the community ban, this proposal is very, very worrying and I urge the other arbitrators to resolve this issue quickly so as to minimize the disturbance such a shocking and unexpected proposal must inevitably cause. --TS 18:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd acknowledged that he was still some active ban by deciding his ban was over. He then made an edit, which was a violation of the ban. For that he got blocked by an, arguably, involved admin (of which Abd claims he is involved), William M. Connolley. As Abd is now again banned from editing Cold Fusion and Talk:Cold fusion, I don't see a risk that William M. Connolley will block Abd again, unless Abd again decides that the ban is not in place anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)(adapted arguably, I understand it can give a wrong meaning to my text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

In what sense is William M. Connolley an "involved admin"? Even arguably? Does "involved" here take on a meaning not a million miles from "agrees with the ban"? --TS 18:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I included that part because Abd says that William M. Connolley is involved, and arguably because I do not really believe that is the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd says a lot of things. Does that mean they're arguable? In many ways I think that question that goes to the heart of the case. --TS 19:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's an unusual usage of the term "arguably;" in my experience the term is generally used to qualify an opinion held by the writer, to introduce a proposition that the writer believes has merit but may not be universally agreed with; here you seem to be using it to mean the inverse: that the assertion has been made but that you don't think it has merit. I think the use of the term may confuse the reader as to your meaning, maybe consider refactoring for clarity? Thanks, Woonpton (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is really worrying to me that, without public evidence, at least three of the arbitrators are treating William M. Connolley as an involved editor. Is there some hidden evidence suggesting socking? --TS 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Accepting the case gives a presumption that there is a case to answer. For the duration of the case, parties should be sensible enough to halt the dispute and not repeat what led to the case in the first place. As far as I can see, both Abd and WMC have done just that (Abd by editing the cold fusion talk page, and WMC by invoking this ban that Abd contests). When we've finished reviewing the evidence and voting on the proposed decision, that will be the point when the parties are exonerated or not. In other words, there is an expectation that parties will adapt their behaviour due to being parties to a case, and allow the arbitration committee to hand down a decision, rather than acting as if there was no case in progress. Since this is all public (the fact that a case got accepted, and the norms of behaviour during a case), that should answer Tony's concerns that any of this is based on hidden evidence. Though that would be privately submitted evidence, not "hidden" per se. Ironically, private correspondence was submitted concerning socking in this case, but that was related to this. As far as I know, no other private evidence has been submitted. Carcharoth (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any unnecessary disruption resulting from my edit to Cold fusion; however, I did not believe that there was any legitimate ban in place, the community ban having expired, but WMC had claimed on Workshop talk that his ban was still in force and he could prove it. So I withdrew my voluntary ban extension, which I had stated I would honor precisely in order to avoid disruption, while that was being all the while derided as ridiculous. However, the ban was based on charges re editing style, etc., possibly -- it never was clear -- so I thought that if I rigorously avoided anything questionable, no walls of text, no tendentious argument, the only risk was that WMC would insist on his right and "prove it" by blocking me. Since I considered it valuable for the community and myself to understand if he really would be so foolish, in spite of all the warnings and the sheer obviousness of it, I was willing to be blocked to find out. I'd say it was highly efficient compared to all this massive discussion. WMC had many legitimate possible responses, probably the most open and least disruptive would have been to ask for an injunction, as Rlevse did effectively issue by banning me pending resolution of the case. He could have gone to AN/I, though I think that the chance that a neutral admin would have blocked me for that edit was very low.

I have no problem with Rlevse's action, it's what I'd expect from an even-handed arbitrator. Regardless of what the actual content of my edit was, it's obvious that my presence at Cold fusion is seriously upsetting some editors; to determine whether or not this is due to a defect in my behavior, or to a cabal, or to some combination or other factor, could be quite complex; I congratulate whoever was behind the mentor proposal, because it finesses the problem, allowing an individual to investigate and actually solve the problem. In any case, pending, an injunction against editing, or the ad-hoc equivalent, Rlevse's simple statement, makes perfect sense.

Not only could I have figured that out for myself, I did figure that out for myself, that's why I voluntarily extended the ban. However, by doing so I was "enabling" WMC by protecting him from the consequences of his bluster. What he would do to me, openly, he could and has done to many editors, under much less scrutiny. Scibaby, 300 socks and counting, can be tracked back to his block by WMC, who had been edit warring with him, as I recall. If I had time, I'd have documented all this....

Tony, you seem to be under the illusion that "involved" means "content involved." The involvement in this case is long-term dispute over ... adminstrative recusal. Plus immediate dispute over WMC's edit reverting to the May 14 version of Cold fusion. Plus immediate dispute over his right to unilaterally declare a ban and then, based on his own ban, block for behavior that would otherwise be illegitimate to block for. I.e., non-disruptive edits. There are a lot of editors who seem to think that, yes, he could do this. So it was important to assert my right to edit the article or its talk nondisruptively, which exists unless that right has been taken away by the community, through a consensus of uninvolved editors, or by ArbComm or in the enforcement of ArbComm discretionary sanctions, none of which applied here. --Abd (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd, when you say above "Since I considered it valuable for the community and myself to understand if he really would be so foolish, in spite of all the warnings and the sheer obviousness of it, I was willing to be blocked to find out." Did it not occur to you that this was all very WP:POINTy and generally not going to be looked apon favorably by people, like, oh, say mooning the jury? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it occurred to me, and I rejected that under WP:IAR. I wasn't mooning the jury, I was intuitively arranging, so to speak, a field trip for them so they could see what I was claiming in a way that a megabyte of text could not accomplish. WMC could easily have arranged for this little demonstration to fail. He didn't, and his inability to respond according to recusal policy was precisely what it was necessary for ArbComm to see. Absolutely, my edit was irregular, the normal "least disruptive" action would have been to continue my voluntary ban, but, remember, it was being claimed that my voluntary abstinence was moot, and that the ban was real and did not depend on my consent. I decided to confront that, not by an action that was a disruption in itself. I am not responsible for, nor did I anticipate, the edit warring by another party to this case that ensued on talk cold fusion, for which see

• WMC revert (on his theory of an absolute ban, he considered the community ban "irrelevant.")
• Enric Naval revert he said he was reverting me, but he was actually reverting Viridae.
• Enric Naval revert of GoRight
• Verbal comment "I would remove it if it was added, as it would be proxying for an editor banned from this page by a member of the arbitration comity, and has a long standing ban from these pages."

At the time of the edit, I was not banned by an arbitrator. That ban was declared and accepted by me afterwards as very reasonable, pending resolution of this case, after Viridae had unblocked me and had reverted my edit back in. There were two possible ban actions that applied: the declared ban of WMC, and my position is that admins may declare bans but may not enforce them absolutely, i.e., declaring a ban does not create a right to block by an administrator that did not already exist, a block for a nondisruptive edit, which is different from community or ArbComm bans, and there was also the community ban closed and clarified as "one month" by Heimstern, and thus expired; the "one month" closure was clear and accepted by Enric Naval at the time, and not challenged until well into this case, based on claims of confusion of the closing admin (by some; WMC claimed that the community ban was irrelevant, that his own declaration was sufficient.)

The edit itself was very reasonable (and not at all what was claimed about it, it did not reassert the allegedly rejected sources, but rather only pointed to Talk page discussion of those sources, which are secondary sources), but I simply did what I believed I had the right to do, edit that page. Once. After I declared withdrawal from my voluntary consent to a ban continuation, I did not jump to edit the page, I simply stopped believing that I was banned, and when I saw a question appear that I could answer more fully than anyone else there, I edited. In the end, one picture is worth a thousand words.

This incident also demonstrated, before the Committee, if it looks at it, the long-term behavior of Enric Naval and Verbal, both of whom previously reverted other editors who restored, partly or fully, on their own responsibility, material from the allegedly banned JedRothwell (editing IP as he had since 2006). The claims made about me in Evidence about "proxying" for banned editors was based on these incidents. As with Coppertwig in this one, and GoRight beyond a single revert, I did not edit war over such removals, beyond an initial revert. (If an editor is, in fact, banned, the initial revert by Enric or Verbal would not be an edit warring revert, but in this case, that initial revert was by WMC. On this theory, a restoring revert from an automatic removal per ban, by Viridae in this case, is not an edit warring revert, but later reverts may be considered such. --Abd (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it occurred to me, and I rejected that under WP:IAR. I wasn't mooning the jury, I was intuitively arranging, so to speak, a field trip for them so they could see what I was claiming in a way that a megabyte of text could not accomplish. - Black is white. Up is down. Night is day. War is peace. IAR, assuming you consider it to be a rule (I don't), is a narrow thing for helping to improve articles. Abd stretches it like taffy to cover all sorts of misbehavior on talk pages, in the Wikipedia space, off wikipedia, etc. When confronted with his misbehavior, Abd cites IAR to claim that rules don't apply to him because he doesn't think they should. It goes a long way towards explaining those 100+ ignored warnings and why he still doesn't think he did anything wrong. It's also a pretty good indicator of why the current proposal is wholly inadequate for dealing with him. Raul654 (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment s from me

On my talk page, Rl said While I am still looking into the details... and then there is some confused stuff about a 'it appears the one month ban by Heimstern. There was no such ban. I'm curious as to whether he has finished looking into the details. I asked that on my talk page, but he hasn't replied. Meanwhile Carcharoth suggested discussiong things here, so perhaps we should.

So, my view: one of the main questions in this case is my ban of Abd from Cf and t:CF. My view on this is in my evidence, which (snark) unlike many other peoples isn't too long to read. Alas, that hasn't stopped people not reading it. So: So I banned them both, for an indeterminate period of approximately a month, from CF and t:CF; A asserted that the ban didn't exist. I told him that it did; I reviewed A's ban [10]. Since the ratio of useful edits to wikilawyering in the interim was well below 1%, I kept the ban in place. If arbcomm cared to suspend that ban, they should have said so. Had Abd wanted arbcomm to declare it suspended / invalid for the duration of the case, he could have asked them. Rl now appears to have re-enacted "the" ban [11] but has failed to say what he means by "the" ban. Arbcomm (or at least, the small portion of it that speaks) has now told me not to block Abd during this case. I think that is the wrong decision, but I admit Arbcomm has the right to make it, so will abide by it.

Meanwhile, Arbcomm (but not perhaps Rl [12]) should consider the role of Viridae. He is without doubt involved in this case (having presented very one-sided evidence) and yet unblocked Abd without pretence of communication. A glance at his contribs suggests that he ahs unblocked and run [13] - certainly he isn't answering talk page messages.

William M. Connolley (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Arbcomm (or at least, the small portion of it that speaks) has now told me not to block Abd during this case. I think that is the wrong decision, but I admit Arbcomm has the right to make it, so will abide by it." - that is good enough for me. I will now oppose the temporary desysop, but would ask that you please do not take any actions with respect to Abd while the case is still open. As I said above, by accepting the case, there was a presumption that both you and Abd had a case to answer. You were in dispute and the resolution of the dispute is something that we are now attempting. It is difficult to do that if the parties themselves try to resolve things during the case, or the community try and resolve things during a case. Please, you, Abd, and everyone, just present the evidence (or finish presenting the evidence) and let us decide what the evidence shows. That's how this process should work. Put down the tools (wrt Abd) and edit buttons (Abd wrt to cold fusion) while the case is in progress, and go look at the proposals made by the drafting arbitrator on the workshop page. I would propose injunctions on both WMC and Abd to formalise this, but I hope you both have enough sense not to carry on with your dispute while the case is still open (since the drafting arbitrator has started posting proposals, we should be not too far away from a proposed decision when voting will start). As for "the small portion of it that speaks" - there are 14 of us in different time zones, so if you think all of us should respond to everything happening in the arbitration pages, that will be a difficult expectation to meet! Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to answer the questions in the final paragraph - if you have concerns about Viridae's actions, please enter that into evidence and make proposals on the Workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, WMC declared his ban about two months ago. In all that time, I made two edits to Cold fusion. One was during the period of the community ban, and I had, as you may recall, suggested self-reversion as a solution to the problem of the complication of ban enforcement by "harmless edits." The occasion was a strong ban, an ArbComm -declared one, and the community clearly did not care to block for technical ban violation. I truly believed that the consensus was solid that I was safe making that one-character edit, self-reverted; contrary to what Enric now asserts, there was no provocative intent or intent to test at all, then. This time, this one time, was different, for reasons I explain below. I am now banned from the article by Rlevse, for obvious reasons, the same reasons that would make you think an injunction might be needed. But it is not needed. I was under a phony ban for at least a month, a ban declared by an involved administrator with a huge axe to grind with respect to me, personally, and you saw the one edit I made come down, and I announced it in advance (that I might be making such an edit). Originally, Rlevse said something about "it might be wise not to edit those pages until the case closes." I think he realized that this wasn't a ban, and that a ban was appropriate, pending, so he did make that explicit. I will not violate that, and I'll say right now, if I edit that article or its talk without the permission of an arbitrator or the closure of this case, whichever comes first, any admin may block me, I waive even claims of involvement. I can say that because I'm not going to do it, period. You don't need to go through an injunction. I'm essentially enjoined, by Rlevse, acting quite properly. --Abd (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement

WMC and Abd are the two primary named parties in this case, which is still open and they have a history with one another. This makes them involved to a high degree. Therefore one taking an admin action against another should not have happened. That makes WMC's block of Abd an involved block and honestly, I'm amazed anyone thinks otherwise. As for Adb, he clearly should not have edited the Cold fusion page simply because he knew it'd cause lots of drama. Mathsci admits "I think it would be hard to determine how long the page-ban was for" so that there's confusion on the issue and disagreement amongst the parties is understandable (cf the case evidence page). As Carcharoth says, I could have taken more time on this esp in regards to my initial statements to Abd but I was stepping in as no clerk was immediately around and it is ArbCom's responsibility to make sure that the involved parties of the case don't go around committing the same errors during the case that brought them to arbitration in the first place. If a party to an arbitration case thinks it is in order for him to ban and/or block his opponent during the case something is drastically wrong and it needs to be dealt with promptly. The CF page ban is a core of this case and to prevent further drama I've explicitly banned Abd from the CF article and it's talk page for the duration of the case. If the final decision rules on that, that'll take precedence, otherwise the page ban would then be in the communitie’s purview. There are other arb cases where arbs presented evidence on the evidence page (or PD talk page) and did not recuse (dates delinking, Aitias, and Geogre-WMC as three examples. I posted the evidence about the block to ensure it was documented and then in three editing sessions made a timeline of the events that led up to it so that all users could use it as a chronological reference. Prior to this case I can not recall any significant involvement with either Abd nor WMC. Furthermore, I have no axe to grind with either side. So the question becomes "does today's event in me trying to maintain order on the arb case and trying to document it mean I should recuse?". I do not think so. I have not used my admin bit. I was attempting to restore order, and ensure that both parties stepped away from the cliff. I could have posted this chronological evidence on the PD talk page and no one would have thought anything of it as this has been done many times before by other arbs, such as in the Scientology case. But instead I decided to post it on the evidence page and built a chronology with date and time stamps there because I thought the timing very important. I built this all from diffs supplied by users on both sides of the issue from various case pages and talk pages. Arbs often put something together like this in order to make the issues clearer to them. I do not think that in this instance it requires me to recuse. Note: posting on my own talk page and the case PD talk page. Respectfully to all, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your statement. When you say "no clerk was immediately around" it sounds like a momentary thing. In fact this highly contentious case was left unclerked for over a week, despite the fact that Hersfold notified arbcom that he would be absent, and that I requested by email to clerks-l on 2 August that a clerk be appointed to stand in during Hersfold's absence. When parties see that the case is being left to spin out on its own with no supervision it's hardly surprising that some of them (on both sides) run amok. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I did not mean to imply it was only momentary. Lately the clerks have been in short supply (vacation, recusal, etc). Their availability lately has been spotty and we all hope that will change soon (like when summertime is over ;-). — Rlevse • Talk •

I have some ideas about how ArbComm could easily deal with this, but I won't clutter this page with them. If asked and notified of the question, I'll respond in situ. --Abd (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how Rleve's conduct is problematic here, nor why he'd need to recuse. Indeed he seems to acting with restraint; I don't see anyone defending the behavior that instigated Rleve's actions. IronDuke 01:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, here you have one defending the behaviour. WMC imposed the ban on Abd before the case started, Abd started the case to contest the ban, the ban was still standing until the case ended, Abd had already defied the ban before to see if WMC would block him, Abd has recognized that his edit was testing WMC's limits and he had to know that WMC would block him for defying the ban again. And, yeah, WMC shouldn't have fallen in the trap by blocking him. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst Abd should not have edited the page during this proceeding, there was absolutely no reason for a block by WMC. WMC could simply have notified the alleged violation or alleged inappropriate action here. Why did it have to be him? For what my opinion's worth, Rlevse has done absolutely nothing wrong here, and both WMC and Abd come out of this looking very bad. Fritzpoll (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse is absolutely correct - contrary to the posts on WMC's homepage, Rlevse did not need to know any detail of the case to censure WMC; the simple knowledge that there's an open Arb case between these two parties is more than sufficient. Any action by WMC against Abd at this point, be it correct or not, is highly inappropriate and has drawn very strong attention to himself and the objectivity of his actions. Similarly, Abd's editing of the CF article at this time is provocative, to say the least. Both parties would do well to take some advice for a change instead of constantly trying to give it. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

True enough. At the same time, it is important to keep track of the context - as Abd has mentioned before and after the event, he edited to goad WMC (or another admin) into a block. That it worked speaks badly of WMC. That he tried it speaks badly of Abd. - Bilby (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

More accurately, in response to repeated insistence by WMC that his ban was real, and he could prove it, thus aggressively asserting confidently his view of the very basis of this RfAr, I did decide to stop enabling him by voluntarily refraining from editing those pages. I did not then go there to defy him. I simply set his "ban" aside, and when an occasion presented itself, did not stop myself from commenting on the Talk page. I was very aware that there is much claim that my participation there is with walls of text or domination, or POV-pushing, or whatever, so I carefully avoided any possible reason (I thought!) for the edit itself to be considered disruptive. WMC's response to this edit was actually a very typical WMC response, and so all this may have been quite useful. It allowed WMC to demonstrate, in front of ArbComm, when a lot of attention has been gathered, how far he goes. If there were not other credible allegations of use of tools while involved, I'd agree that desysopping might be extreme. In fact, however, there is no shortage of such allegations, WMC has been warned before by ArbComm for involved tool use, and essentially dismissed that warning as wimpy (I think that's in my Evidence), and one of his blocks-while-involved led ultimately to the Scibaby range blocks, which are doing massive on-going damage. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's be very clear - you stated, outright, just prior to editing the page and as part of your declaration that you intended to do so:

So if WMC blocks me for a nondisruptive edit, it demonstrates, in itself, involvement (attachment to his own prejudice about an editor). If another administrator blocks me for a nondisruptive edit based on WMC's ban, and not on the edit itself, it would demonstrate affiliation, that is, another admin doing for WMC what WMC might not be able to do himself. Elsewhere that's called "meat puppetry."[14]

Without even bringing in later comments, (not to mention off-wiki ones), you were very clear that you were thinking very much about the responses that your actions would engender. Let's not pretend otherwise. - Bilby (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Enric Naval claims that I "started the case to contest the ban," and therefore "the ban was still standing until the case ended." I stated my reasons for the case with [15]. It doesn't mention contesting a ban, rather, the case was about the usual administrative recusal failure, and a few other issues. I was not asking ArbComm to lift a ban, but rather to judge whether or not WMC could legitimately declare and enforce one. If he could, then, yes, the ban existed and perhaps, indeed, I'd have to ask for it to be lifted. But if not, the ban was unreal, a fantasy. There was another reason for making that edit which may actually be the most significant: it was psychologically necessary. Contrary to what some may think, I do suffer from massive criticism. Having a dozen editors writing volumes every day about what a terribly disruptive editor I was does have an effect, and I was seeing way too little support from the community. My belief is that I'm working to develop and support real consensus, which sometimes involves anticipating it and acting to bring it out. Were all these editors right? What if I'm deluded?

I needed to find out, and if I was deluded, so seriously deluded, the best thing for me and for the project would be to be indef blocked, and quickly. I needed to know, personally. So I found out.

Thanks, Wikipedians, all of you. I'm grateful. I may be wrong about this or that, but I'm not completely deluded. I was correct, WMC could not carry out his threat to block me if I edited the articles, and get away with it.

And if ArbComm wants me to "take a hint" from the decision by reading between the lines, I'm afraid I'm unlikely to do that. The ADHD is real, and we tend to read literally, we don't understand "between the lines," or at least not well. If ArbComm has expectations of me that are not being stated, and they aren't for behaviors that come naturally to me, the committee may be disappointed. I'm not demanding anything, just pointing out what works and what doesn't work. As the proposed decision stands right now, I have some level of mixed feelings, because I'd hoped to be able to address the Scibaby situation and other matters that came up, but I don't think I have the time, that ArbComm has the time, and that this case has the time. Other than that, just as some fear, as it stands, I consider this a kind of victory, that ArbComm is affirming a very important policy, admin recusal. I have one regret here, about the edit to cold fusion. If I had not made that edit and WMC had not blocked me, perhaps the issue would have been resolved at a lower level of involvement. I'd say that WMC should not have declared that ban, period, given his prior involvement, and I proposed in the Workship that recusal on request should be routine. (IAR still applies, though, and no admin should allow the project to suffer damage simply because of recusal rules; but the problem is really continued, insistent recusal failure.) --Abd (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(Since Abd says that he has problems reading between the lines, I have tried to be crystal clear here)

Abd, in the same link, there are other two sections above called "Summary" and "The present dispute" where it's clear that it's all about the ban and only about the ban (or, rather, about you causing disruption because you couldn't get support for your version of the article, getting banned for that, and then trying through all means to get the ban lifted).

Also, "I was correct, WMC could not carry out his threat to block me if I edited the articles, and get away with it.", that's called causing disruption in order to make a WP:POINT and prove that you were right. That's not good. We are not here to prove that we were right about some rule, but for writing the encyclopedia.

Abd, sorry that you have problems with ADHD, but Wikipedia is not therapy (and please don't tell me that it's "only" an essay, specially when some sections like "Unintended consequences" fit so well this situation). If you boast about having 15 years of online discussion experience, then you are going to be expected to have learned to behave online during those years.

I would like to remind you, and to remind the arbs, that Wikipedia is exclusively about writing an encyclopedia, period. And the issue here was that Abd was getting in the middle of writing one of its articles, and that this is the only issue here, and that everything here arises from Abd insisting in the middle again, and that I come to wikipedia exclusively to get good articles written, and that this is the reason that I oppose Abd's return so much. Everything else is missing the point that the only goal here is writing the encyclopedia, the ultimate goal is not the strict enforcement of some social club rules. So get Abd topic banned, or banned, or very restricted in some way, or whatever is necessary to let the writing of the encyclopedia continue. And, I shouldn't need to say this, don't punish the admins that do the things that are needed to keep the encyclopedia being written, specially if they acted on request of the editors that were enforcing content policies in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

A curious statement, Enric. So you seem to feel that when you and Abd disagree over what should or should not be included in CF that (a) you are completely in the right, and (b) Abd is completely in the wrong? And so much so that you believe that Abd must be banned? And further still that the end you have set your sights on justifies any means to attain it (i.e. "don't punish the admins that do the things that are needed to keep the encyclopedia being written, specially if they acted on request of the editors that were enforcing content policies in the article" regardless of whether they are justified or not)? Strange because when I read the CF talk page I see Abd also claiming to be "enforcing content policies in the article", specifically but not limited to WP:NPOV and WP:RS and WP:V. Are you suggesting that your interpretation of those policies is the solely correct one and that those who disagree with your vision should be banned? I don't wish to put words in your mouth here, so please correct any bits I have gotten wrong. --GoRight (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

@Rl: I have no axe to grind with either side [16]. I have not used my admin bit - weaselling. You have made threats to block. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh c'mon WMC irritability is not the same as partiality. You could at least assume some good faith? Given the biggest failure of arbcom is to do much having someone a bit impatient might even get something done here. --BozMo talk 20:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

WMC was clearly in the wrong and should not have blocked ABD himself. As for Rlevse having to recuse himself for pointing that out, telling WMC not to do it again, and informing him of the penalty if he does so..…well that’s ridiculous - and I'm sorry, but the diff provided by WMC above is certainly not even close to being evidence of Rlevse having an axe to grind against him. There's absolutely no reason for Rlevse to recuse himself from this case, he acted appropriately and has done nothing wrong. This entire issue has been blown way out proportion. Dreadstar † 02:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Clearly" perhaps but also not yet written down in any policy. If we want sub judice (during Arbcom cases) rules on Admin behaviour by all means lets write them but as far as I can possibly tell at the moment the only limitation on Admin behaviour is using tools to gain advantage in a content dispute (not the case here) or using tools where there is a conflict of interest (not the case here since a COI arising from use of tools does not seem to be included). Let us not forget that tools exist and are presumed to exist for the good of the project. Use of tools to slant a content dispute (e.g. banning someone to stop them voting on an AfD) is clearly wrong. No one has yet said that this use of tools by WMC was unjustified just that he should have wasted someone else's time about it in the circumstances. Now that's all understandable if you take a troll playground view that blocks are about punishment, vindictive etc but we go to lengths to say blocks are not punishments, they should not be imposed if articles are already protected because they exist to protect the project etc. From the clean view of project we aspire to there isn't an obvious COI on this block. If even in a world where witness tampering is impossible because history is recorded Arbcom or others feel that such blocks may intimidate witnesses or something then we should pass a policy. I don't know which way I would vote but we need to focus on the projects interest not squabble boards. --BozMo talk 06:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools - With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools.? Since you ask for a policy, I believe that is quite a relevant one, and is not undone by the exceptions in WP:UNINVOLVED. If you think that WMC can be a neutral party when applying a block to someone who he is engaged in an arbitration case with, then we're not going to agree here. Why couldn't he just post to AN or ANI if a block was required? Fritzpoll (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a better policy on relevance, thanks, but it is still rather subjective. AFAICT in this particular case Rlevse stated categorically that he was not reviewing the reasons for the block (for example he was not checking to see if it was an obvious exception) but he was objecting that a block should not have taken place in any circumstances by WMC. Wizardman supported but cited only WP:BLOCK which does not apply. WMC is one of the more rules-based administrators on the project; excepting unannounced policy changes I have not seen him break an objective WP rule in years, only there is a certain Judge Dredd tendency. I do not doubt if he posted to ANI other admins would have stepped in and blocked. Whether Arbcom's decision to hear this case should force this step was arguable but now he has agreed to anyway. --BozMo talk 08:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BozMo. Administrative bans are really warnings, and when an editor perceives that a warning is being issued by an administrator who is involved or has some axe to grind, the warning is likely to be disregarded. Had WMC followed recusal policy, he would indeed, if he believed the edit to violate some policy, have gone to AN/I to ask for a neutral administrator to handle it. A neutral administrator would have been very unlikely to block for that edit. Rather, what would have been the likely outcome would have been either acceptance of the edit as non-disruptive (just look at the edit!), or a warning to me to not make such edits while this case is pending, to avoid possible disruption (and it is not necessary, with a pending case, to make a decision about whose fault this disruption might be). I think a block, absent a warning from a neutral administrator, would have been very, very unlikely. This points out how following recusal policy can prevent much unnecessary disruption, and the arguments that recusal rules unduly inhibit the ability of administrators to prevent disruption are thoroughly bogus. I have seen one case where an administrator recused when faced with obvious disruption, and damage resulted; in that case, in fact, I'd have suggested, because of the emergency nature of the disruption, that the admin protect the involved page, or block the editor reverting his close of an abusive AfD renomination. Instead, the admin did not respond to the reversion, but went to AN/I, which report was successfully diverted into a debate over the notability of the article, and, because the AfD was left open, it attracted comment and really couldn't be closed, and it became a huge battle between factions, the "procedure" faction and the "to hell with procedure, is the topic notable or not" faction. Recusal rules do not prevent Ignore all rules action, they would merely would have required that the admin to go immediately to AN/I after reverting, protecting the AfD, or blocking the editor for disruption, and then recusing. Had the admin blocked this editor for disruption, it would have saved a lot of trouble later; this was User:Allemandtando, nee User:Killerofcruft, a sock of User:Fredrick day, essentially banned as a result of this and subsequent incidents. --Abd (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions/Observations

Irrelevant comments removed. WorriedScientist (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment under your main account, if you have one. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about "talk page in any Wikipedia space"

I have a question about one of the terms in Abd's editing restriction. What is a "talk page in any Wikipedia space"? Do you mean only "Wikipedia talk:...", or does this include things like ANI? Cool Hand Luke 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would interpret that to mean "any namespace ending with 'talk:'", and thus not necessarily noticeboards, however I'm not certain. I'd also point out that as written, this appears to be "one post per day period" instead of the usual "one post per day per page"; I'm not sure if this was intentional. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I misread that emphasis. It's not "any talk page in any Wikipedia space," but "any talk page in any Wikipedia space." Now that I see that, I agree with your interpretation. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you're recused, but if that is how it was meant, an alternate may need to be proposed that makes this clearer; and makes the noticeboard issue clearly laid out as well, since those are generally held to talk page guidelines despite usually not being talk pages. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll message FloNight. Hopefully she can clarify what she means before there are many other votes. Personally, I think a standard once-per-page-per-day limit would suffice, but if I thought it was prudent to limit a user in this way, I would also include the noticeboards. Cool Hand Luke 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Once-per-page-per-day is standard, but referring to 1RR, which I have rarely, if ever, violated on any Talk page, and it is unusual in article space (but there is some unclarity for me on the meaning of revert; bald reverts are obvious, but what about attempts to satisfy an objection by making a new edit with, say, better sourcing?). 1 edit per day will simply push me toward one big edit instead of a number of smaller ones. I can handle that, easily, but is this really what ArbComm wants? The biggest problem with the proposed set of remedies is that it does not seem to be based on specific misbehavior but rather on a vague concept of overall misbehavior as alleged by one of the parties, Enric Naval, who has edit warred on Cold fusion Talk, and repeated it the other day. I will, however, review the exact evidence cited and update my evidence if needed. (I believe I responded, but only with a draft.) On the technical point, if it were meant by "any talk page in any Wikipedia space," any talk page at all, then the words "in any Wikipedia space" would be redundant. Rather, I did read it, at first, as referring to WP talk space specifically. But then the complaints were mostly about Cold fusion talk. So the remedy doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Mentorship, no problem, I'm looking forward to it. --Abd (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient

On the workshop, there is broad community support for FOFS that Abd engaged in meatpuppetry, wikilawyering, that he drove away subject matter experts, that he made personal attacks against other users both on and off wiki, that Abd uses talk pages as off-topic discussion forums, and that he has disrupted the dispute resolution process where other users are concerned. This proposed decision does nothing to curtail any of these misbehaviors. Is the arbitration committee planning to actually deal with these problems? If not, then what was the point of asking for evidence and workshop commentary? Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The broad community support appears to be against your definition meatpuppetry (see especially the uninvolved comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby). If ArbCom wants to act on this claim, they should clarify that meatpuppetry requires actual coordination between the users, not merely agreeing with a few edits from a banned editor. I've no comment on the rest, but this wasn't WP:MEAT. Cool Hand Luke 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice try to rewrite the meatpuppetry policy, , but your claims didn't fly when GoRight proposed it on the workshop. Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them... Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. - were Abd's edits verifiable and made independently of Jed and Scibaby? No, they were not - in the latter case, he restored a talk page edit verbatim minutes after Scibaby made it. (So his actions were neither verifiable nor independent of Scibaby's) So he did violate the rules, your own attempt to rewrite them not withstanding. Raul654 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules are descriptive, and we do not treat restoring an occasional edit as "meat puppetry," as at least three independent commentators noted at your now-archived SPI attempt. This activity cannot sanely be called editing "at the direction" of a banned user. Read the policy again: verifiability and independence doesn't matter because the editing is not at the direction of Scibaby: it falls cleanly outside of the definition. Cool Hand Luke 17:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

we do not treat restoring an occasional edit as "meat puppetry," - who said anything about occasional? Abd spent weeks/months acting as Jed's mouthpiece.

This activity cannot sanely be called editing "at the direction" of a banned user. - the half-dozen or so editors on the workshop who unanimously rejected GoRight's proposal would beg to differ with your claims about policy. As does the typical interpretation of the policy, as applied at ANI, where explicit communication is *NOT* needed to infer meatpuppetry. Or, as the banning policy I cited above (which you apparently failed to read) says Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating edits made by banned users in violation of the ban, and such edits may be viewed as meatpuppetry. Notice it says nothing about being told what to do by the banned user. Acting at someone's direction doesn't necessarily mean they tell you what to do and you do it -- it's more than suffecient to follow their lead and restore their edits, as Abd and GoRight have both done. Raul654 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's proposal was ludicrous. Evidence of direction is not needed for meatpuppetry, that's the whole point of the policy. Coppertwig's comments there capture what the policy is meant to prohibit: evasive socks and apparent canvassing. This is not an example of such apparent direction. Apart from the occasional revert, they're clearly different users acting for their own purposes. MEAT is not meant to be a cudgel to ban users for holding similar POVs, your attempts notwithstanding. Cool Hand Luke 18:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GoRight's proposal was rejected because it was a backdoor attempt to rewrite policy to excuse his own violations; it was rejected becasue it was flatly contradicted by policy, which does not require communication. (Despite his own attempts to rewrite that same policy a few days earlier) Per the banned policy I just cited, restoring a banned user's edits is by itself evidence of meatpuppetry.

They're clearly different users acting for their own purposes. - their own purposes? Hardly. Restoring another user's edits means you are editing for his purposes, and when that user is banned, restoring his edits is proxy editing and is prohibited. Or, to look at the bigger picture, banned means just that -- no longer allowed to participate on Wikipedia. The meatpuppetery policy does not mean "Go ahead and make the edit, and some like minded editor might restore them." It is not an invitation to restore comments from banned users, although you'd never know that given how frequently GoRight and Abd do it. (Not to mention their multitude of other misbehaviors) Raul654 (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd concentrate on their other misbehaviors (with a focus on how it harms the encyclopedia), rather than wikilawyering some selectively-quoted language from MEAT. I don't deny they've been disruptive, but this MEAT theory has been rejected by the community enough times.[17][18] The arbitrators apparently have no desire to adopt it. Cool Hand Luke 22:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Arbcom, I hope you are looking forward to the next Arbitration case brought by Abd against some hapless fellow who makes a small mistake in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm going to dig out my copy of war and peace instead of wasting my time contributing to the next one - at least that is well written and has a coherant and interesting narrative to follow. Probably shorter too. /sarcasm. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Should it happen that I survive this mess, I will note that I have only brought one ArbComm case, this one, plus I would have brought Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG if Jehochman hadn't beaten me to it. The editors complaining about my behavior here include (initially it was almost entirely them) those who previously called for me to be banned, for raising the issue about JzG, during RfC/JzG 3, as shown in my evidence, and that includes Spartaz. If I ever raise a frivolous and harassing RfAr for a "minor mistake" by an admin, or by anyone, please put me out of my misery. My view, however, is that no clear example of recusal failure is minor, unless nobody was hurt by it. I actually oppose the desysopping of WMC, for my view is that, generally, ArbComm should suspend administrative privileges for recusal failure, and it should do so promptly and without fuss and without blame, until it is satisfied that whatever failure there was will not repeat, the basic condition satisfying that would be that the admin shows understanding of the problem and would therefore recognize and recuse in the future under similar circumstances. It is precisely that condition which remains absent for WMC (and it did for JzG as well, which is currently moot). --Abd (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that Abd doesn't listen to warnings (from other users or the arbcom), doesn't think he's done anything wrong, and is looking very, very hard for any bit of vindication he can pull out of this case, I think the chances that he is suddenly going to see the light and improve his behavior are nil. And Spartaz says, given the current remedies, Abd arbitration round #3 is inevitable. Raul654 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

From his POV, Raul654 is correct. The issue hinges on balance. If my behavior is bad from start to finish, then the only reasonable remedy would be a site ban. If my behavior is good from start to finish, flawless, then I should get a barnstar and profuse commendations. If my behavior is mixed, with some good and some problems, then the good should be noted (don't forget that, Arbs!) and the problems addressed with solutions that have some hope of success. I see mentorship, particularly mentorship with teeth, as a solution that should satisfy reasonable concerns. Discretionary sanctions covering a problem article is an excellent idea. The meat puppetry claim has long been used in an attempt to exclude POV as distinct from misbehaving editors, and "broad community support," mentioned at the top of this section, is the "faction cooperating in the frustration of policy" staring itself in the belly-button, but I'll deal with that below. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The track record of mentorship voluntarily undertaken by problem editors is checkered at best. The track record of mentorship agreed to during Arbitration in order to avoid stronger sanctions is, so far as I know, uniformly negative (though I'm willing to be enlightened if there are success stories I've missed). Given the historical futility (and worse) of this approach, why should it satisfy "reasonable concerns" in this case? MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Picking up on a point Raul made: "I think the chances that he is suddenly going to see the light and improve his behavior are nil". I think this can be applied to more people than just Abd. Rather than focus just on one side or the other, try and step back a bit and look at all the behaviour here (that is what arbitrators have to do when considering the case), and consider what all parties (both Abd and WMC) and those who have heavily participated here, could do to improve their behaviour (or internalise lessons learned), even if it is only the smallest of changes. Then we might start getting somewhere. If anyone thinks that their behaviour will be totally unchanged as a result of this case, that would be good to know as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain that my behavior will improve. As to others involved, some may improve, some may degenerate as they burn out, and it's up to them. Thanks, Carcharoth. My suggestion is that all parties (construed narrowly and broadly) start to more actively seek broader consensus, instead of being content with imposing their views, or the views of a faction, on Wikipedia. Consensus is powerful and resolves disputes instead of burying them. I can accomplish nothing without consensus, whatever I do that is actually opposed to consensus will be transient and disappear. What I do with consensus is likely to survive me. It will not require any continued effort on my part. --Abd (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this for real?

Has anyone thought through the implications of Principle 6, regarding the need to avoid "reasonable but inaccurate suspicions" of coordinated editing? So, constructive editors are now guilty until proven innocent when accused of being a cabal. Maybe we should just surrender the project to Randy in Boise and be done with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. As I said in the Workshop, that proposal directly conflicts with the secret of Wikipedia's success - collaborative editing. If that principle is accepted, we need to abolish WikiProjects (since they exist to facilitate "collusion") and watchlists. Talk pages too, since they're prime venues for collusion. And FAs. Can you imagine - you decide to completely re-write an article that's a FAC. All around you there's collusion going on. Oh the horror! Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This proposal does not seem to be related to any particular finding of fact or remedy. It would be helpful if the Arbs could explain what particular conduct that they are attempting to address with this proposed principle. I too am concerned about how this statement might be gamed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the principle as a sound attempt to address the "cabal" issue. That there is an appearance of a cabal is actually not deniable, I did not invent the term as applied to the particular faction involved, it is found in media source and was routine on Wikipedia Review, and there is evidence most recently added to my Evidence page showing clear appearance and a little more, some level of conscious coordination, not in a formal sense, but as a sense of "us" vs. "them." I did not need to establish the "reality" of the cabal, it is an instinctive social phenomenon that has, in my view, resulted in long-term damage to Wikipedia, and that is not to blame the individual editors for what is, after all, simple cooperation (as with WikiProjects). What is damaging is when this cooperation becomes tribal and exclusive, as it clearly has in this case, and that is what my cabal evidence shows, I believe. Solving this problem is difficult, and beyond the ability of ArbComm at this time, in my view. But this principle begins to recognize the problem, which becomes most visible with tag-team reversion, where a series of editors make bald reverts, and where that same series of editors repeatedly does this in the same articles or family of articles. Even a single bald revert is to be avoided, but they are sometimes necessary (and not only with vandalism). We can't prohibit them, but in order to deal with the problem, we need to be able to at least recognize it. An action which is prohibited to a single editor does not become desirable, or maybe not even allowable, when it is performed collectively by a confined set of editors, each contributing a piece. Neutral editors, yes, fine.

I would prefer, myself, a deeper approach to the cabal question, that explicitly acknowledges the appearance of a cabal. I used the word "cabal" because I realized that always pussy-footing around "mutually involved and supportive exclusive faction" was, shall we say, not conducive to understanding. If a better single term had occurred to me, I'd have used it, but the meaning I gave to cabal is actually quite within standard usage, and it is only a more extreme meaning ("conscious, evil, secret plotting") that is objected to, and for which I presented no evidence, because I have seen none. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't believe that "guilty until proven innocent" is at all what that principle is trying to get across - it's simply a reminder that various actions can be taken different ways, that misunderstandings can occur, and users should make sure that they are aware of their own actions such that they limit such misunderstandings. Do any of you have a suggestion as to how it can be reworded, if you feel it is too easily gamed? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the "guilty until proven innocent" wording. All that's needed to be in violation of this principle is for someone else to have a "reasonable suspicion." The burden of proof is on the accursed to show that not only were they not acting as a cabal, but that they could not "reasonably" have even been suspected of acting as a cabal. (Let's not even get started on what "reasonable" means...) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that Abd has already chimed in above to use this principle to claim vindication for his unsubstantiated (per FOF #12) cabal allegations, I think it would be best to scrap the principle entirely. Raul654 (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The man who insists that 2+2=5 will suspect that everyone who says that 2+2=4 is in a cabal against him. And, just as he knows that 2+2=5, he will know that his suspicions are reasonable. This principle, if passed, would put real teeth into his suspicions. (After all, his opinion about which suspicions are reasonable is at least as valid as anyone else's opinion, isn't it?) Thus this principle would tend to work to the advantage of POV pushers who are outnumbered. Also, if those who disagree with him do adjust their behavior to avoid the appearance of coordinated editing with others who agree with them, then they will have just coordinated their editing. So, any attempt to obey this part of principle 6 would be a violation of it. So, no, it is not a good idea. Cardamon (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This finding is probably not helpful for the reasons Cardamon points out. Everyone considers his or her own suspicions "reasonable", so such a finding will not deter inappropriate accusations. I do think that Abd's employment of these proposed findings, in the face of a proposal specifically branding his allegations as unreasonable, may be useful context in drafting the decision. MastCell ^Talk 21:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me point out that Flo and Bain have voted THE SAME WAY on SEVERAL PROPOSALS. They are also KNOWN to use BACK CHANNELS of communication. Block them now, I say! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Go to some real world trial and try to get rid of judge by pointing out that you have already appealed against his/her previous decision so you find him/her involved. You will uncover it is not easy this way. Is it because neutrality of real world judges is of less importance? Hardly, they do decide about real lives and real properties. But that is just it why judical system do not entitle parties to veto judges easily because this way you allow the unscrupulous ones to fish for their demanded judges and balance quickly disappears. Taad Laet (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Concern regarding "Bans" finding

I'm concerned about Stephen Bain's endorsement of the proposed finding on bans, which reads:

Policy as it stands does not authorise administrators to impose bans by themselves, absent available discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia policy need not be written - the description follows the accepted practice - but there needs to be some actual indication that a practice is indeed widely accepted and utilised before it can be considered policy. For example, one would expect to see substantial evidence of the practice being used and supported, or well-received efforts to document the practice. In this case there has been no indication shown that there is such a widely accepted and utilised practice.

At the outset of this case, when the issue of administrative authority to impose such bans was under discussion, Thatcher, Shell Kinney, and myself all clearly indicated that we had used this approach, and that it had been an effective and relatively drama-less part of our admin toolbox (discussion). Without being overly self-congratulatory, I think it is fair to say that the 3 of us are administrators with generally positive records and experience in addressing and resolving difficult disputes. I am therefore at a loss to understand the assertion that "there has been no indication shown that there is such a widely accepted and utilised practice."

Part of me thinks that it might have been useful for the drafter to contact or poll at least a handful of sysops who work at administering difficult on-wiki disputes, to see how widespread this practice really is. On the other hand, I'm to blame since I didn't submit any formal evidence documenting the ongoing and successful use of this practice. I will plead only 2 mitigating factors: 1) it did not occur to me that ArbCom would seriously entertain the idea of unilaterally overturning an active and previously undisputed standard practice, and 2) the evolution of this case depressed me to the extent that I couldn't muster the will to post any evidence. If the description does in fact follow the accepted practice, then I don't see how this finding is tenable. MastCell ^Talk 22:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say that this finding disappointed me the most, though I was surprised by many of the workshop motions that were carried over. Bainer's initial proposals seemed completely out of touch and I don't see that's been tempered much by the copious feedback received at the Workshop. As MastCell points out, there were several assertions during discussion on this case that administrative page or topic banning was a widespread and accepted practice. I'd posit that whomever proposed the finding didn't put much effort into investigation. General sanctions don't yet exist for every contentious area on Wikipedia and they shouldn't need to - clueful admins with a mind to help out in difficult areas can re-purpose sanctions already determined by ArbCom to help in similar situations. These bans, unlike ArbCom sanctions, are open to simple community review as happened in this case - more importantly, the community absolutely upheld this ban. Perhaps best illustrating this point is the fact that not a single person commenting during the community review batted an eyelash - if these bans were unique or untested, surely someone would have noticed? Its telling that the only participants contesting the ability of an admin to ban are the banned user and two others who support him so blindly that they are unable to see any fault in any of his actions - this is not a solid foundation for a FOF.

Second to this is a swath of findings/sanctions that seem to put disruption of ArbCom over disruption of the encyclopedia. Sorry guys, we all love you, but you're taking yourself too seriously if you're ready to admonish people over a single case of edit warring simply because it occurred on these hallowed pages. That you let the case get away from you in such a manner should prompt consideration of how the system is failing heated disputes such as this. Put down the stick and back away from the horse - we get that you were properly shocked that, left completely on their own, personal disputes simply fester. Lets use that energy to talk about how to prevent a repeat occurrence instead. Shell ^babelfish 23:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, could you (and others) give examples of what happened when page or topic bans imposed by admins were contested? Was an independent review of the page or topic ban carried out if requested, and what has the standard of discussion and evidence presentation been like? i.e. How formal or informal were such bans? Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)