Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2

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


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

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

As to the specifics:


 * WMC's only content edit while the page was protected was to revert the article back to a state prior to the edit warring, as suggested by GoRight. WMC made no content changes to the article other than this revert. Prior to this Abd had vocally argued against the version that was initially protected, accusing Hipocrite of gaming the system.


 * WMC subsequently banned both Abd and Hipocrite from the article and talk page for one month, dependent on their behaviour, and then WMC lifted the page protection. Hipocrite accepted the ban, Abd did not.


 * Abd announced that he would defy the ban so that he could appeal any subsequent block, or, if WMC chose not to block him, demonstrate that the ban did not hold. This, he argued, would limit any disruption. In response, Enric Naval raised the issue at AN/I. The resulting discussion endorsed the ban (full disclosure: I !voted to support it), but it was cut short before support emerged for Abd, as Abd asked that the discussion be closed and stated that he would agree to the ban.


 * As described, Abd subsequently made a minor edit to Cold fusion, reverted it, and was blocked by WMC. I see no reason not to assume good faith here on Abd's part, but WMC's response should probably be considered in light of prior events.


 * WMC later unbanned Hipocrite after Hipocrite made guarantees about his editing. WMC has not chosen to unban Abd, and Abd has been unable to receive confirmation that the AN/I ban has expired from the closing admin (due to a wikibreak).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, it's my understanding that even if uninvolved, an admin doesn't normally have the authority to create a ban by themselves. They can threaten to block for continued disruptive behaviour, but not threaten to block for harmless or productive edits to a page.(23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC))


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


 * Reply to Coren and Casliber : Well said. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * It might be exciting and educational for each participant in this discussion to volunteer their age (only if they wish to). I'm 41. Jehochman Talk 15:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses to User:William M. Connolley:
 * "My unban of H [24] was not conditional on his not editing CF. I've said that already somewhere, but I forget where." - Without bothering to look up the diff I hereby acknowledge that I was so informed. I do not claim that it was a condition of the unban, per se, but I still believe that it is significant to this discussion. --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "GR's "disclosure" somehow omits Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight#Outside View by Abd" - Quite right, thanks for pointing that out. I should have thought to add it but I was confident that my general support of User:Abd was already widely known and I did mention "As an opening statement I will say that I am generally a supporter of User:Abd in these matters.".  The case you cite is part of the reason why I have formed this opinion, among many others.  Regardless, I apologize for the oversight which has now been corrected.  As I have also stated I do not intend to weigh in on whether your conduct is appropriate, or not, but I do intend to provide relevant factual information pertinent to the discussion.  I have also acknowledged that I supported your initial actions as a cooling off period even though I now disagree with your continued assertion of control.  --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Request for clarification (October 2009)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator):
 * :
 * :

Questions by 99.27.133.215
What is the "purpose of Wikipedia" referred to in the "Discretionary sanctions" remedy? The excerpt in question reads:


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

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


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

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

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

Statement by EdChem
Two observations... 1) I suspect that, by Purpose of Wikipedia, ArbCom means exactly what they have said under that title in numerous previous decisions, namely:
 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.

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

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

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

Statement by wholly uninvolved roux
Lo! Forsooth! 'Tis the sound of ducks.

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

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia". That's the purpose.  Everything else is a means to an end, and as flexible as it needs to be in order to reach that purpose.  Being an encyclopedia implies that accuracy, reliability and (by conscious choice in the case of Wikipedia) neutrality are important objectives.  One "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" when one compromises those objectives in the pursuit of a purpose other than making an encyclopedia; therefore things like advocacy, evangelism, and vandalism have no place here. The quoted statement is, fundamentally, not inaccurate but looses sight of the purpose (the encyclopedia) by focusing blindly on one aspect of the means.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Coren. Articles can be semi protected from IP disruption. IPs that are likely socks can be reported to SPI.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 21:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe I should just leave the poor Wikipedians who have to actually try to edit this article to their fate - please do not do that, especially if anyone intends to do that to prove a point. There are plenty of ways to deal with this. If you are not familiar with the ways to deal with such things, please follow the advice given by Rlevse, though the IPs in question seem to be editing the talk page, not the article (semi-protecting talk pages should only be done in cases of extreme disruption). If anyone posting to this clarification is involved in the editing of the article, please deal with this by posting to a noticeboard to get uninvolved editors and admins aware of the situation. And if new editors turn up who have experience of other areas of Wikipedia, please take the time to explain things to them and treat them with more patience than you would a new editor or IP editor who you suspect of pushing an agenda. Agree with Coren on the clarification of the main point. Would also like to note that, as far as I can tell, no talk page FAQ has been written or started yet. If there is a FAQ, then new editors posting to the talk page can be pointed to that, instead of the lengthy and chaotic archives of the cold fusion talk page, or (worse) repeating the same arguments over and over again. Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons I like and use semi-protection. I think that it is warranted here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley
Initiated by  Abd (talk) at 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly William M. Connolley, and Mathsci's pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. [that is, not related to global warming. It is related to the case on which clarification is sought. 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)] I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LessHeard vanU: Thanks. The remaining clarification needed would address situations where I have a pre-existing involvement with an issue, where I am not an uninvolved passer-by "meddling." Later, I'll ask to address the problem of where I'm neutral, uninvolved, but have evidence to present that might be overlooked. I can present it off-wiki, but wouldn't it be better to present it directly? Maybe not!
 * Mathsci leads with a claim that I've misrepresented various users, but I noticed little variance between my sketchier account, above, and his more detailed account, below, except he adds some mind-reading and speculation as fact. I did discuss mentorship with GoRight before, but did not consult with him before filing the comment in the climate change RfAr, so "pre-decided arrangement" would be an overstatement. Mathsci correctly reports Ryan's comment, which puzzled me, is Ryan in charge of RfAr? I thought the arbitrators were. The only mention of "vendetta" is here, just above. It means that Mathsci has an axe to grind and is grinding it. As to "cabal," what I called the "cabal" in my case was roughly the same set of editors now accused of ownership of the global warming articles. The two cases are closely connected, which could easily be shown. "Cabal" and "vendetta" are not related. Vendetta is personal. Why was that relatively brief statement in the Climate Change RfAr worth all this email to an arbitrator, administrator, an AE request, etc.? I'd say it's obvious. Vendetta.
 * Short Brigade Harvester Boris: Yes.
 * Durova, as usual, hits the nail on the head.
 * MastCell's comment is disappointing. I had no intention to test the limits, I was surprised at all this fuss. Sure, I might have interpreted the ban more tightly, but I have difficulty keeping something in mind that I don't understand, and I don't understand the ban, why it was placed, so I discounted it, thinking that ArbComm couldn't possibly have wanted me to refrain from making a comment where I was so involved.
 * General comment about mentor. I have asked Fritzpoll to be my mentor. He had suggested it previously, and I had accepted, but there may now be complications. I'll let Fritzpoll explain it if he considers it prudent. I did not, however, consult Fritzpoll, not imagining that consulting a mentor for the subject statement was necessary. In effect, with my statement, I consulted ArbComm, it was hardly a hidden action! --Abd (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Mathsci


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


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

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

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

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


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

NYB indicated to me in an email response that he hoped that MastCell's WP:AE request would clarify matters without ArbCom involvement. Before Abd's surprise public request here, I assumed that things had been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. I apologize that further time has to be spent on what should have been an entirely straightforward matter. Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to all! Mathsci (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LHVU has given a slightly muddle-headed statement. I am not in dispute with Abd, any more than MastCell is. Both of us have been involved in pointing out Abd's contravention of his editing restrictions. Abd has just come off a three month ArbCom ban and so far has shown no sign of returning to normal editing patterns, quite the contrary. As far as I am aware, I am a good faith editor in good standing. LHVU should not repeat Abd's innuendos without checking facts for himself. Abd's account and interpretation are not accurate. His misleading use of the word "vendetta" could not be supported by one diff. Just like the nonsense he wrote about a "cabal". Mathsci (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris
I had planned to request clarification and then saw the present request.

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

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

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

The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was phantom mentorship: writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background. Durova 390 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: MastCell's statement, his cynicism is a case in point for why mentorship becomes so difficult as an element of arbitration decisions. When a mentorship occurs informally the focus is on its results: does behavior actually improve?  Some editors choose mentors well and others choose badly.  That shakes itself out.  The one essential element that can't be forced is mutual trust.  My suggestion is to wish Abd well with his new mentor because that appears to be the only mentor available to him, and either remove mentorship from the formal remedy or rename it, because what it appears the decision was seeking was not a mentor but a screener to preapprove specific kinds of posts.  The latter might be a good idea but it isn't mentorship.  Durova 390 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Enric Naval
--Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) This motion seems to be the correct way to proceed. Cheers to the committee.
 * 2) The mentorship thing in the remedy was just a leftover that should have been removed in the final draft.
 * 3) I don't think that GoRight is an appropiate general mentor for Abd for learning how to edit better, but that's a different topic that should be treated separate. What is on-topic here is the mentorship regarding the Arbcom remedy, and GoRight is absolutely unsuited for deciding when Abd can skip that restriction.
 * 4) I have refrained from citing Abd as an example (for example, in the ban discussion of an editor that made very long comments with OR, where I was tempted to compare Abd with this editor), and I have refrained from citing Abd as an example of anything. This was in order to avoid giving Abd any excuse to start a long off-topic tirade about how he was unjustly treated by Arbcomm/Cabal/WMC/etc. WMC, Matschi, whoever feels the temptation to refer to Abd, please learn to do the same thing and never mention Abd in topics that are not directly about him.

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

Clerk notes

 * I believe this has passed at 8-0 with 2 abstentions. (Majority would be 9 if not for the abstains.) - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motion
Remedy 3.2 "Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)" is revised to read: "'Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.'"


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


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Recused from all matters Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As Steve Fritzpoll (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator discussion


 * Clerk notes

Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley
Initiated by  William M. Connolley (talk) at 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * (notified: )

Statement by your name
Abd's involvement in AFD appears to rise to an infrigement of his ban, e.g. the discussion here : It is not'' normal discussion for one participant in an AfD, which is a community process, to respond to most comments on one side with argument. If there is more evidence to be presented, by all means, present it, but there is never evidence for non-notability, so I'd recommend shutting up and let editors present what evidence they have...''. The arbcomm ban Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute... doesn't define "dispute"; do arguements at AFD rise to the level of "dispute" within the meaning of the ban? Note the "harassment" stuff here.


 * @M, V: fair enough; I thought it might be more usefully handled as a clarification, but if you'd rather see it at AE: Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @V: as it turns out, the discussion at AE is turning on the meaning of the word "polls" in your judgement, so the issue of clarification remains open William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Abd
Someone should tell WMC that his slip is showing. He has no need for this clarification, because he should not be involved with enforcing the restrictions, nor should Mathsci or other involved editors, whose recent actions are rising, indeed, to the level of harassment and baiting. I'm allowed by the restrictions to participate in polls, and that's what an AfD is. My comment there was not outside the envelope for normal poll participation. If i'm incorrect, indeed, ArbComm is welcome to clarify, for my intention is to respect ArbComm decisions no matter how stupid or intelligent. If I want to appeal them to WMF, I will, otherwise, not.

The harassment comment, as can be seen from the first diff WMC gives, I struck. I made a simple response to the AfD on the irrelevance of classic bad AfD arguments as part of my Keep !vote, and the ensuing brief discussion occurred because the nominator elected to respond personally to me, it wasn't necessary. The article in question is of marginal notability, I had previously reviewed it during the second AfD, and the whole process and its repetition is an example of how Wikipedia multiplies debate over simple questions because people become personally involved and tenaciously push for what they want instead of moving on. What WMC appears to want is the fulfillment of his prediction, stated long before the events that came to ArbComm's attention, that I'd end up banned because I meddled, by pointing out, on his Talk page, his infamous use of tools while involved, at a point when I was neutral and actually generally supported his POV. Had he heeded the warning, he'd still be an administrator.

WMC should not be allowed to waste ArbComm's time with frivolous requests. Let neutral administrators who need clarification, in order to enforce remedies, ask questions like this, or let an affected party do it. My previous request wasn't fully answered, but I'll handle that by email to arbcom-l, if I feel the need. --Abd (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Vassyana: Well, to give WMC's request a positive construction, he's asking for clarification of the sanction, and the problem is that he's not the one who would need it, I suspect. He has no legitimate purpose to intervene in this case -- and the last one --, unless he's planning to be the monitor, with Mathsci, of my behavior. Mathsci voted in the AfD right after I did. I could go back and find lots of examples of what could be wikistalking, and evidence of intent to harass. But it really should be simple. A review of the RfAr should show that WMC and Mathsci should be hands-off, unless specific article business requires them to interact with me. ArbComm sanctions should not be enforced (or enforcement requested) by highly involved editors unless they are personally being affected by the sanctioned editor's behavior, that's a general principle that should be considered here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MastCell and Enric Naval. No admin who acts within the spirit of recusal policy has anything to fear from me, even if they make mistakes. No sysop has lost his or her privileges simply from blocking me, nor have any been taken by me to RfAr over it or even a noticeboard. The only direct loss was for WMC, who insisted on the right to block me long after it was blatantly and blindingly obvious to everyone else that he shouldn't, and he went ahead anyway, while the case was being considered. Sure, if I'm blocked without cause, and it's not a mere short block but indef, and I put up an unblock template and it's denied without what I consider good cause, I'd go to ArbComm. It's my right (and their right to decline or accept the case, so if there is a problem for an admin, ArbComm has decided it's worth examining).
 * Sure, an admin should be careful about blocking me, but shouldn't they be even more careful about editors less able to defend themselves? I see these comments added here today. Who's maintaining disruption over this, stirring the pot? Tznkai makes a harmless or even helpful comment on my Talk page about an alleged violation, and bang! WMC and Enric Naval are all over it at User_talk:Tznkai#Abd, with Enric Naval bringing in off-wiki "evidence" that I'd be happy for ArbComm to consider, if necessary. But I would never bring that kind of thing here unless it was crucial and necessary. If I'm clearly violating my restriction, any admin can block me and ask questions later. It's what happens later that separates the sober administrators from those who are not. I welcome intervention by truly neutral administrators, even if they do something I don't like, because, usually, I can reason with them and they make reasonable decisions, pretty quickly. If it's unclear, then either AE or RfAr/Clarification are the place to go.
 * There is a problem with MastCell's "spirit of the sanction" proposal. There is no spirit of the sanction, because there is no spirit, no soul, so to speak, behind it, there is just a statement that was made with little deliberation as to what it meant, and why it was being implemented, and what prior damage was being prevented, and it may have meant different things to different arbitrators -- and I think it did. I wrote that I'd write to arbomm-l if I needed clarification, and I didn't think it was needed yet. Perhaps that's my ADHD, it can manifest as a puzzling failure to intuit what people mean if it is not contained in what they say. If I were doing actual damage, ongoing, just banning me until some other solution appeared might be appropriate. But sometimes when one person is getting a number of people upset, blame isn't actually appropriate for that person. Sometimes questions are being raised that must be raised, sooner or later. The existence of massive disruption from a brief comment is a sign that this is the situation. And some good can come out of that. Now or later. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Abd, while blocked, has posted additional responses and statements regarding this issue, and particularly regarding the current block. That statement is posted at User Talk:Abd. If there's some means of transcluding it, or if it should be copied directly instead, please do so - I post the link here on Abd's behalf, because I said I would while declining his unblock request yesterday. Best, UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

Statement by GoRight
It is evident that WMC means to pursue Abd beyond reason and to hound and harass him at every opportunity. This request is vexatious as Abd's restrictions specifically allow him to participate in polls such as an AfD.

I would ask that the committee amend the decision to include an interaction ban on WMC with respect to Abd. This would seem prudent to maintain a harmonious working environment. --GoRight (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that WMC has not participated in the AfD,, or at the article itself, , so one is left wondering just how WMC came to be aware of this issue in the first place? I'll leave it to Arbcom to decide whether there is an actionable behavioral concern here on the part of WMC.  --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * @My good friend Mathsci: Perhaps WMC should be encouraged to remove Abd's talk page from his watch list through the imposition of an interaction ban then. That should cut down on these vexatious requests.  --GoRight (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
This does look premature to me, although it shows the usual signs of Abd digging his heels in and preparing for a fight. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

 * Abd still seems to be testing the limits of his editing restrictions. His reaction to the last clarification on his talk page was not encouraging.  It doesn't seem that any further clarification is necessary here. As Vassayana suggests, a request should be made on WP:AE, if users think there are problems with the nature of his participation in this AfD.


 * 129 people have Abd's talk page on their watchlists - presumably WMC is one of those.


 * has already indicated that Abd had joined the EEML in his evidence for the EEML ArbCom case. It seems reasonable to suppose that Abd found out about this particular AfD through that mailing list or some other form of off-wiki correspondence with that group of editors.

Mathsci (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Abd has added another long "explanation" without diffs on his user talk page . It is not clear what its purpose is, except perhaps to deflect attention from his own editing and create drama where there is none. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
Abd seems to think that an AN ban discussion is a poll. Tznkai (the admin in the AE thread) has told Abd that this one is a violation of the ban. See related discussions User_talk:Tznkai and User_talk:Abd.

Does this need a clarification, or do we let AE handle it as an obvious violation? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.: Pst, make a clarification: Are ban discussions considered to be "polls"? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC) are ban discussions in AN considered to be "polls" inside the context of Abd's restriction? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.: Regarding Abd's edit of the Oppenheimer-Phillips_process article. It's a violation of his cold fusion topic ban because Abd has repeatedly linked himself this process to cold fusion:
 * On-wiki, cold fusion was cited in three different comments in the talk page. All three comments were authored by Abd, no one else mentioned cold fusion. Abd even took care of linking to the cold fusion article when pointing to me the relationship. Abd himself remarked in his third comment that an editorial in Nature listed the OP effect as one of the possible explanations for cold fusion.
 * Off-wiki, around that time, Abd cited the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect to support Takahashi's explanation of cold fusion effects: in wikipedia review and in the VORTEX-L mailing list . Abd had been trying to insert Takahashi's explanation into the cold fusion article.

Abd was already blocked once for making a minor edit to an article that he was banned from, and then claiming that it was harmless because he had self-reverted, see User_talk:Abd/Archive_12. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I initially viewed this request as unnecessary, but recent events have convinced me of its importance. Abd doesn't take the MYOB restriction seriously. That was evident in his response to an earlier violation, and in his response to a more recent violation.

Abd's disrespect for the spirit of the restriction is enabled when other editors offer to proxy for him to get around the restriction. Presumably, the restriction was not intended to encourage sympathetic editors to repost Abd's contributions in their own name, but to actually keep him out of external disputes where his input has proven counterproductive again and again. I'm reminded of ; every time a banned editor like or  would create a sock to attack another editor, Martin would restore the material by saying, "I'm not banned, and I agree with this." That sort of exercise may or may not be "legal", in a narrow legalistic sense, but it seems deeply antithetical to the spirit of the restriction.

My prior experience leads me to envision at least two possible branches from this point:
 * 1) Abd continues to test the boundaries and seriousness of his restriction. At some point, people will realize that "words to the wise", however wise they may be, have no effect here, and an admin will block him. At that point, the blocking admin will be subject to a grinding barrage of litigation and argumentation attempting to prove that they are "involved", "biased", etc.
 * 2) Abd is told in no uncertain terms to respect the spirit of his restriction. He is told that if he doesn't understand the spirit of the restriction, then he should seek clarification prospectively from ArbCom before involving himself in disputes. Sympathetic editors who enable Abd to evade the spirit of his ban are asked to stop. If any of these clear limits are overstepped, then Abd is blocked.

Personally, I think the second option is better. Of course, my observation of previous litigation involving Abd has made me extremely cynical, so perhaps things aren't as dichotomous as I've described them to be. Then again, the groundwork for pathway #1 is already being laid. This feels depressingly like a game; certainly I get the sense Abd is treating it that way, and I'd rather it were nipped in the bud. MastCell Talk 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
I dealt with Abd today in what I considered a quite straightforward act of enforcement of the current editing restriction. The response I got from him, full of assumptions of bad faith, accusations, attempts of intimidation, and threats, was unacceptable. Enforcing the Arbcom decision under these conditions is a highly depressing and stressful exercise, so a clarification or possibly amendment would be appreciated. The rule as stated is vague, it's always been and has remained so even after the latest amendment: no discussing "disputes", but "voting and commenting at polls"? But where does a normal editorial content discussion end, and where does a "dispute" start? Which activities are "polls"? And why are polls exempted anyway; what makes us think his intervention in those has any less potential of growing disruptive than his intervention anywhere else? Since he is gaming these rules, the rules must be tightened. MastCell describes the situation quite well above. As another alternative, I only see the prospect of seeking a community sanction in the form of a full siteban on top of the Arbcom decision. That won't be achieved without yet more blood, sweat and tears, but it might be worth it – there's currently hardly any net positive coming from Abd; he has been making only insignificant numbers of mainspace edits and seems to be spending all his time playing around the edges of his restrictions stirring and perpertuating his disputes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Another aspect of Abd's technique of perpetuating conflict despite the restrictions can be seen here. The logic is this: (a) There is a dispute in which Abd is not a originating party. (b) Abd comments on the dispute, breaching restriction. (c) Admin tells Abd not to breach restriction. (d) Abd attacks admin. (e) By attacking the admin, Abd has now created a dispute in which he is a party, which he then cites as a pretext to continue commenting on the initial dispute (a). Obviously, this cycle can and will be repeated ad infinitum. It's just like the "make-admins-involved" cycle: (a) Abd misbehaves; (b) Admin warns Abd; (c) Abd misbehaves against admin; (d) Admin responds; (e) Abd now claims admin is "involved" and therefore barred from taking action. These cycles need to be stopped, now. I have therefore blocked Abd for breaching his restriction with the edit cited above . Arbitrators can review the block here while they're at it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Tznkai
Its amazing what kind of conversations can happen on your talk page without your participation or even knowledge. First time I logged in today what with a real life that surfaces for several days at a time. If I've got the basic time line here, we had this request for clarification, which lead to an AE request, which I handled a week ago (Jan 12). Then, seperately, I saw that Abd had commented on an AN thread involving GoRight, now we're back here at the same request for clarification? So, which situation are we trying to clarify? I will likley comment further after I read my talk page and do the appropriate digging.--Tznkai (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I responded on my talk page to Abd, Eric Naval, William M. Connolley, and ATren with this. My opinion remains the same. Bans discussions are not polls. Abd's vague involvement in the greater issue does not give him an in on the dispute. Thus, Abd's editing on the AN thread about GoRight was in fact a violation of his ban. Such is my interpretation as an administrator, and I don't think arbcom needs to go out of its way to affirm simple common sense. Enforcement done under arbitration enforcement is best done at AE, or at least noted there.--Tznkai (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz
Abd was blocked at 07:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC) by. Abd subsequently requested unblocking to participate in this discussion and in other discussions dealing with the block and his fate. I declined the unblock, given that he was specifically blocked due to his interactions with others in venues such as this. However - I did ask Abd to post additional statements to his talk page, should he wish to contribute further to this discussion. If it is proper, I or other editors can copy the relevant remarks over; if not, they will at least be on his talk page and visible. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Skinwalker
Last night, Abd violated his topic ban from any content related to cold fusion with this edit to Oppenheimer–Phillips process. A glance at Talk:Oppenheimer–Phillips process shows that he edited Oppenheimer–Phillips process in relation to cold fusion prior to his ban. Skinwalker (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is there some reason I'm missing that this cannot be sorted out on WP:AE, as is normal for such matters? Vassyana (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse on all matters Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike some of the commenters, I view this as a legitimate request for clarification. On the merits, my view is substantially the same as Tznkai's administrator comment on the Request for enforcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Motion proposed below to address at least part of the problem here. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recused on this case. Shell  babelfish 11:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Motions

 * (There being 17 arbitrators, of whom 2 are inactive and 6 are recused/abstained, 5 is a majority) Updated clerk notes: Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)...Updated arb count.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting

and shall not interact with each other, nor comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other, on any page in Wikipedia. Should either editor do so, he may be blocked by any administrator for a short time, up to one week.

Enacted ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support
 * If there's enforcement to be done, let someone else handle it; neither of you should be involved with the other at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure that WMC is the problem here, but I'm willing to see a complete and utter break in communication and interatcion between the two. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so sure this is needed, per SirFozzie. Both Abd and WMC demonstrate the same problems with others, not just when they interact with each other, so this is not really addressing the core issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A stopgap measure. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mailer Diablo 06:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * I think an informal request that these editors stop interacting with each other should suffice at this time; I'm not convinced a formal motion is appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Recuse
 * Cool Hand Luke recused per original case - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FayssalF recused per original case - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shell Kinney recused per this - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Steve Smith recused per this - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse on all matters relating to Abd Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley (February 2010)
Initiated by  Abd (talk) at 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * Notification of this request, and acceptance of injunction against further comment by Abd on the current case, pending outcome of AE request.
 * Notification of this request, and acceptance of injunction against further comment by Abd on the current case, pending outcome of AE request.

Statement by Abd
I am subject to an "MYOB" sanction, as amended:
 * 3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions by motion on 16:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent that ArbComm did not intend to prevent me from normal editing, which can, of course, involve some level of "dispute." The discussion leading up to that ban made it clear: my interventions in disputes was considered disruptive, though this had not been established by specific evidence, so the normal existence of examples helpful in clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent. However, consistent with the discussion, I interpret "originating party" as referring to being involved in some dispute primarily, as distinct from happening across two or more editors arguing and intervening. There is a present situation would could appear as the latter. However, it was, in fact, the former, I was an involved editor, and would have, for example, been allowed to file an AN/I report myself, presumably. My edits and discussion of the case were not considered violations of the sanction, until I responded to an AN/I report filed by one editor complaining about another, very much about that case. The sanction is not specific to AN/I, and if it prohibited what I did at AN/I, it would also seem to prohibit everything else I was doing.

But Sandstein has interpreted the line as being crossed at AN/I, interpreting "originating party" very strictly, in a technical sense, instead of as substance, i.e., as "already involved through legitimate and permitted editing." This interpretation was asserted before, in prior RfAr/Clarification, I questioned it, but this was not addressed by the committee.

Hence my request here. In this case, I considered filing this request before posting to AN/I, but I take WP:IAR very seriously, balancing the necessities of the project with the disruption involved in possibly violating a sanction. I judged that an emergency existed, and that serious and permanent damage might be done, were I not to intervene. Confirming and supporting on-wiki harassment of an editor, resulting from rejected off-wiki extortion over WP content, through a block, can damage the reputation of Wikipedia, and I was willing to risk being blocked to prevent or at least warn against this damage.

I'm presenting links to the history of this incident in collapse. They are only here as an example of how the sanction might be ambiguous, not to involve ArbComm in a dispute without groundwork being laid. '''No action other than clarification is requested at this point. Sandstein has issued a "clarification" which means that I'm clearly enjoined from repetition of what triggered the AE report, whether that was a sanction violation or not.' However, now, some days later, and with the injunction requiring all abstinence from comment on the situation outside these pages, whether as "originating party" or not, and because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr; the instant situation is being used as a claim (below) that the strict interpretation was necessary to avoid disruption, thus it may be necessary to examine that, and I have no means of doing so outside of an RfAr, otherwise I'd follow ordinary DR over my dispute.'' That's the result of an over-strict interpretation of the ban. I'll wait a while to see, though. Please understand that I prefer any decision to no decision. No decision leaves me wondering what the hell ArbComm intends. Some seem to believe that it was basically, "Go Away, Abd, this is our project, not yours." Fine. ArbComm can decide that. I agree, even, with half of it. At least I thought it was "our project." comment revised due to shifting situation --20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@SamJohnston: Since he is insisting so strongly here (and elsewhere around the wiki) I'll pull this part out of collapse. I urge it be read by anyone who wants to understand the situation better, though the deeper background remains described and linked in the collapse box. It seems to me that I was arrested and charged with jaywalking while someone was being mugged on the sidewalk. Definitely, I shouldn't jaywalk, in general, especially after being warned, but ... what if I crossed the street to prevent a mugging? And the police came running ... and arrested me as that notorious repeat jaywalker? And the mugged person is also arrested for "disturbing the peace," i.e., yelling and getting blood on the sidewalk? Besides, he was wanted for an unpaid traffic citation. The mugger is thanked for calling attention to these criminals. Okay, dramatic, but perhaps you get my point.

AN/I report section on off-wiki harassment: archived discussion permanent link, present state

There is more response to SamJohnston in the collapse box for responses to involved editors; however, his allegations are not relevant here, which is why the response is in collapse. The issue here is the interpretation of the sanction so that further unintentional violations do not take place, or, alternatively, AE actions are not filed on behavior not prohibited. The current incident is described only as an example where there was, certainly for me, or possibly for others, a difficulty of interpretation, and there have been opinions given by other editors, both ways.

I'm not asking ArbComm to decide whether or not I was justified under WP:IAR, because that would not clarify the sanction.

AN/I full report: archived discussion permanent link, present state with this filing AE request: current link permanent link, present state Sandstein's proposed result: permanent link, present state Notice that I consider Sandstein not involved and able to issue an injunction that will be respected. link to request on my Talk page to enforcing admin. Permanent link to request to reconsider on Sandstein Talk.

@TenOfAllTrades. I wrote TOAT to consider just what came to light in the AN report discussing his block of LirazSiri, and which led to another admin reversing his action. I describe the mail in the collapse box below. @TenOfAllTrades. Again! Thanks, it's a brilliant plan to find consensus on Wikipedia: (1) Block/ban anyone you don't like. (2) Block/ban anyone who defends or supports anyone you don't like. (3) Ban anyone who objects to this, after all, they are disruptive and should instead be working on articles. (4) Done. Consensus. No more disruption. Except for all the socks, but we'll have better software soon. --Abd (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(Involved means that these editors are or have been involved in conflict with me and may be expected to have a possible prejudice. It is not a claim that they are guilty of some misbehavior.)

@SamJohnston: this request is to clarify the sanction. "This behavior," your term, is unclear, the sanction was not accompanied by evidence of specific incidents, and an MYOB sanction appears to be a new device, as far as I can tell. There have been multiple allegations of violation, most of which were not accepted as such. It's unclear what it means, I guarantee that. Hence the need for this clarification. Your comment is a possible interpretation. We are here to discover how arbitrators understand it. It's not at all clear that they considered it sufficiently, so now they have an opportunity.

It is not asked of ArbComm that they judge my recent behavior as appropriate or not appropriate in itself. Rather, it is requested that the committee clarify the meaning of the sanction, so that I can know more precisely what is permitted and not permitted. I had other choices at the time of the action behind the current enforcement request that might have been less likely to trigger an AE request, and if the sanction is interpreted to prohibit what I did, I would, in the future, take these other steps, such as emailing ArbComm directly for permission or to inform them of a developing situation. Or similarly emailing an administrator with the necessary information. I did this, in fact, while site-banned, I emailed JzG with information about a sock puppet filing AfDs. He quite correctly conveyed the information to AN or AN/I. Unfortunately, as often happens, nobody paid any attention to the report, and nothing was done until much later.

Since SamJohnston continues to insist, and drags in off-wiki evidence, and the evidence is cherry-picked to present his desired appearance, I refer again to the evidence I now have pulled out of the history collapse, that I posted to AN/i. SamJ acknowledges below threatening to AfD an article if the editor does not "chill" with respect to a different page. Suppose the editor does "chill." Would he then still file the AfD? If not, why not? If the topic is not notable, it should be AfD'd anway! No, Sam was attempting to control the behavior of the other editor on a page ''not related to the notability of TurnKey Linux, the article in question. That was coercion. And when LirazSiri did not comply with the demand (i.e., tweeted back with "chill," himself, SamJ began his campaign of harassment. Some of the actions were legitimate, taken by themselves, just as if someone might move around, comb through my contributions, and find every questionable action I've taken or article I've created, and revert or nominate for deletion. All at once. All the while crying "vandalism," as he does below, a claim that has been sustained by nobody. And he's done more, much more.

Threatening to AfD an article known or presumed to be important to an editor, because the editor disagrees with you on another page? This is coercion, and is the kind of off-wiki harassment that is clearly a violation of policy, and it's amazing to me that SamJ continues to wave this like a big red flag in front of the community. In a sense, he's right. It seems to take something really dramatic to get the community's attention. It's why he'd want to do that which is a mystery to me.

@Stephen Schulz: Sure. You are involved, historically, in conflict with me. was my evidence in the subject case, showing prior involvement in conflicts related to that case. The conflict originated with Requests for comment/GoRight and continued in various venues.

@Future Perfect: Future Perfect blocked me in enforcement of this ban, but for an edit in which I criticized him over his reversion of my !vote in a poll at AN. This was recusal failure, for sure, but also shows how the ban has been wikilawyered to mean this or that, whatever the interpreter wanted. I was never clearly found to have violated the ban based on those poll votes, and ArbComm did have an opportunity to comment on it. Again, unclarity leads to confusion and opportunity for those with an axe to grind.

@TenOfAllTrades: I will send a copy of the email and TenOfAllTrades's response to any arbitrator on request. I would post it here but it contains details about the current situation, and the other editor involved in it. The mail was civil and not tendentious. It stated at the beginning that TOAT was free to ignore the mail. It was not a demand of any kind. It was sent in a hope that TenOfAllTrades might simply reconsider his action with respect to LirazSiri. As noted, I cannot read the deleted edits, but it appears that they contained nothing like what has been described, an attempt to "out" JzG, who is, after all, User:Guy Chapman as the redirect says with his apparent approval. LirazSiri claims that he was actually attempting to be friendly, but without seeing the actual edits, I cannot, of course, confirm that. Could it be that an idea that this editor is some kind of monster is then affecting how his comments are read? I don't know.

But I know that last year I did ask TenOfAllTrades to intervene to talk some sense into the admin over which the subject case was filed, or at least to attempt to defuse the situation, and that TenOfAllTrades responded as if I'd ask him to do something very offensive. Had he responded more sensibly, Wikipedia might still have that editor as an administrator.

@Short Brigade Harvester Boris: SBHB is also an involved editor, part of the faction I identified in the subject case. It's only a handful of editors and administrators, comparatively! Please remember, the factional identification was not an allegation of misbehavior, only of involvement in a pattern of activity, which included calls for me to be banned previously. This response is inside this box because ArbComm is not asked to decide if I should be banned, though certainly it could decide to respond in that way. These arguments by SBHB are misleading, as we might expect from someone involved. SBHB is a master at brevity in tossing mud. He's also quite perceptive sometimes, I always pay close attention to what he writes.
 * Testing the limits again. There have been several AE filings and actions. The decisions have gone both ways; actions which were clearly permitted were the subject of filings. So far, I have not, once, taken an action where I deliberately pushed the edge; each time, I believed that the action was permitted, and with one possible exception. This time, I knew that some editors believed that the AN/I comments I'd made would violate the sanctions, and I would thus have waited for clarification if not for an emergency. Shit happens, as they say. Unexpected circumstances arise. I'm not going around looking for edges to test, at all. I'm trying to work on the project, and I deal with what I see, like most editors. It happens, though, that I see stuff that others miss. Whether I was right or wrong on that, however, is not the issue here. The issue is the meaning of the sanction, and if ArbComm clarifies the meaning, surely that would leave me less room to "test the limits." There is no emergency now, and if ArbComm does nothing, damage will be slow in arriving. I'm now bound to interpret the sanction very narrowly, much more narrowly than I believe was the intention of the Committee, pending clarification.
 * eating or breathing. Yes, I still do those things, probably for a while yet, though at my age, and with my health status, I'm acutely aware that there are limits to this. I don't want to waste my time, and "testing limits" would be quite a waste. There are no limits, in fact, as I see about every day, until and unless you run into one, and it's not reliable when that will happen. Sometimes an editor gets away with insane disruption for years, with nothing happening until it does, and sometimes an editor jaywalks and is promptly indef blocked, and nobody does anything about it.
 * clarifications every few months. Well, this is the first one I've filed. One was filed by another editor, but instead of taking the opportunity to clarify, it enjoined the other editor from mentioning me. It actually picked the wrong editor to sanction in this way.... so disruption has continued. At some point ArbComm will learn to deal with the cases presented to it so as to avoid continued disruption. If someone is asking for clarification, maybe they need clarification! Not a ban against asking. If there are continued requests, ArbComm can surely deal with that then.
 * remove him from the project. Whether or not ArbComm can even do this depends on the definition of the "project." Certainly it could site-ban me, but that would, as I've stated elsewhere, simply move my activity off-wiki, where there would be no control over it at all. I'm indifferent, in the end, I'd only feel some loss with respect to article work, which is limited anyway. I function through advice, not through control. I can do certain article work without "cooperation," but most of what I do involves seeking what might be called "obscured consensus," that is, situations where participation bias causes an appearance of rough consensus that is different from what a broader consideration would produce. Seeing stuff like this is indeed like eating or breathing for me, always has been. I've been effective at this, I'll note. But that pisses off people who were the "participants" in that false consensus, people who sometimes were able to OWN|own articles or whole areas of policy for years. The proof of my work, however, is in ultimate resolutions, which often comes after I appear to have "failed." That's one reason why blocking or banning me is unlikely to reduce disruption. The disruption, in fact, is not coming from me, it just looks like that sometimes. It's classic "shoot the messenger."
 * The flap over my supposed ban violations has consumed far more time than any disruption that would have accrued from tolerating them. Ultimately, perhaps, the ban should be reconsidered, but I'm waiting for evidence to accumulate naturally such that ArbComm could see it clearly. And there are other matters, problems that I see I should address that do not involve violating any reasonable interpretation of the ban, and that are ripe. "Ripe" means that I see that consensus is reasonably likely to form. I don't push for stuff when that time has not arrived, though I sometimes mention about it. (added 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)).

@Mathsci: WP:RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley#Mathsci reminded. Whom do you think you are fooling with "Uninvolved Mathsci"?

@EnricNaval: Yes. The ad-hoc clarification by admins at AE is legitimate, that is, it is proper for them to make an interpretation and enforce it, and to issue clarification, which ArbComm can accept or change, without any aspersions being cast on them. If they are involved, however, in some way, it might not be proper. That's not the case with Sandstein, I explicitly accepted his neutrality even when I knew that his proposed interpretation was, I believe, incorrect. If ArbComm takes no action here, then his interpretation stands and I'm bound by it. Which probably does mean that I'll stop editing Wikipedia as Abd, and if this is the result that arbitrators desire, they need do nothing. As to the instant case, if ArbComm wants to understand whether the strict interpretation being proposed was actually useful, it would have to look at that case, which could be arranged. I cannot arrange it because Sandstein has required me to avoid comment on that case outside of these pages. I could file an RfAr, though, I assume. Maybe I should, being prevented from acting short of that by the interpretation. If that were considered improper, ArbComm could easily move to site-ban me. But I'd be an "originating party," clearly. However, the present case doesn't define the sanction, and, even if the clarification by Sandstein et al stands, I'd probably have commented anyway, under the strict interpretation, because of IAR, and if a similar situation arises again (rare, I saw truly egregious abuse like I've never seen before, and I've seen a lot), I'd do it again. For better and for worse.

I'm still trying to figure out this wiki thing, when lots of editors here, part of a vanishing crew, seem to think they've got it down cold. They don't. It's failing. And lots of present and former editors, administrators, and arbitrators know it. I'm one of the few people actually trying to fix the system instead of imagining that the problem is Bad Editors and can be fixed by banning them. Has that worked?

Some days ago, while I was still blocked as a response to material in the statement I've now collapsed above, I wrote that I preferred to withdraw the request. If that had been noticed and copied here, it would have perhaps saved a little time by the arbitrators who subsequently commented, but I concluded that the issues on which I needed clarification were complex enough that raising them in this venue was unlikely to be fruitful, hence, for the time being, I am bound to follow an interpretation of the sanction that is quite a bit tighter than I had thought was intended. Please consider the request withdrawn. --Abd (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
This is related to the open enforcement request at WP:AE. The question asked at some length above is whether my interpretation proposed there of "originating party" in Abd's restriction is correct. I appreciate any guidance by arbitrators on that matter. So as not to complicate matters further, I have asked Abd not to continue his current dispute in any venue before the request for arbitration enforcement is resolved. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have noted in the AE thread that Abd has agreed to abide by the meaning of the sanction as explained below by Fut. Perf. until such time as ArbCom makes a different decision. Given this, I've also noted that I don't think that enforcement action remains required at this time, and I've no opinion about whether, under these circumstances, this clarification request remains necessary. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  06:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SamJohnston
This is utterly ridiculous. Abd has been explicitly forbidden from engaging in this behaviour and is just off the back of a three month ban. The fact there is any question whatsoever that the original editing restriction was blatantly and repeatedly violated is incomprehensible to me. This editor deserves to be blocked - for me it's just a question of how long for. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * After a more thorough review it is absolutely clear that the intention of the editing restriction was to prevent exactly this type of situation from recurring. Attempting to "clarify" the restriction is either an attempt to work in a loophole that would effectively make it meaningless or an attempt to avoid requested enforcement (or both). In any case it's obviously wikilawyering and the exception should be interpreted narrowly (as it was intended). Conversely, "clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent" with good reason - the restriction itself was intended to apply broadly to any debate about any topic where User:Abd was not an "originating party". I hope we don't have to clarify the meaning of "originating party" as seems fairly self explanatory - however User:Abd's claim of "originating party" status in the LirazSiri situation ought to be explicitly rejected (Update: and has been, here). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * User:GoRight raises a good point about the interpretation of "originating party" (what we would typically call a "plaintiff") in that the scope should be *expanded* to include disputes where Abd is named (e.g. "defendant"). User:Future Perfect at Sunrise summarises it nicely below: The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned my request for enforcement was improperly closed (at Abd's behest no less) in spite of protests from other users and at least one admin. Thus while that particular avenue may have been exhausted prematurely, the underlying issue remains unresolved. I reserve the right to pursue it through the usual channels pending the official outcome of this request for clarification - both as a victim of his personal attacks and of his incredible ability to sap energy and waste the time of all those who [are forced to] engage with him. I hope and trust the arbitrators will reaffirm and enforce Fut.Perf.'s interpretation, as if this were not the intent, what could it possibly have been?

I too initially believed Abd had agreed "to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained [...] in an unambiguous and convincing manner" but he didn't even wait half an hour after this was acknowledged before he started off a new thread on his talk page directly disputing it, and kicked off a dispute with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for good measure. He had also been emailing the editor he had been egging on the whole time (once again involving himself in a third-party dispute even while the enforcement request was being discussed) and continues to undermine the project and cause trouble.

P.S. Warning an active spammer/vandal that you'll nominate their article for deletion at AfD if they don't chill out is not "off-wiki harassment". This is off-wiki harassment. And despite all the usual hand waving, finger pointing, wikilawyering, etc. this clarification is the direct result of Abd turning routine cleanup after a career conflicted editor into a multi-venue, multi-editor dispute. Quoting JzG: "It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it." -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci
When Abd had commented at length on WP:ANI concerning TurnKey Linux in a matter where he was not an originating party, I left a reminder there of his editing restrictions without further comment. Other editors, including, also commented. At ANI Abd's reaction has been problematic: an attempt to smear us, because we commented in the Abd&WMC case - as if we like him are under some kind of sanction as a result of that case (see above for example). He has written similar remarks about. His posts on ANI seemed inflammatory and contrary to the ArbCom editing restrictions. Sandstein interpreted them this way at WP:AE and other users seem to agree there. has commented there and also subsequently been described as "involved" by Abd; he has been banned from Abd's talk page. Likewise is now apparently "involved" and "in dispute" with Abd, according to Abd's talk page. Abd's escalation to a request for clarification and aggressive threats to SamJohnston are a repetition of the wikilawyering and time-wasting already witnessed in early January, when the short phrase on mentors was removed. That he is periodically testing the limits of his editing restrictions in this tendentious way is not a good sign at all. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Abd made some kind of commitment to Sandstein, which he has just withdrawn, a few hours after his block. He appears to be threatening to start an RfAr concerning FPaS's block. Hopefully this threat of further disruption and time-wasting can be nipped in the bud by either ArbCom or the community. Mathsci (talk)

Statement by (uninvolved, but Abd disagrees) Stephan Schulz
The aim of the remedy is to keep Abd from wasting the time of everybody involved with his tendency to wikilawyering and his prodigous output, while still allowing him access to WP:DR where it is really necessary. Therefore the exception should be interpreted narrowly, not widely. If he can enter any dispute simply by claiming to be involved, or by claiming that he wanted to file a DR request "soon", the restriction becomes useless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf.
I have offered the following clarification to Abd, and intend to enforce it as long as Arbcom doesn't provide a different decision:
 * You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that "conflict in which you are an originating party" means the same as "conflict in which you have a prior interest". It doesn't mean that. It means there is a conflict that arose from a disagreement between A and B, and either A or B is you. Simple. In the present case, there was a conflict between A (SamJohnston) and B (LirzSiri). Neither A nor B is you, so it's off-limits. The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As Abd has continued to breach the restriction on this very page, by continuing his comments about the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston, in terms that amount to personal attacks, I have blocked him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside from TenOfAllTrades
I've just received an email regarding this dispute from Abd, attempting to intervene with me on behalf of LirizSiri (whom I recently blocked for attempted outing and threats to reveal personal information). While this may technically adhere to the terms of his restrictions, Abd is certainly evading their spirit. Frankly, I find Future Perfect's statement above to offer the simplest, clearest interpretation of the intent of Abd's sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Observation regarding GoRight. I note that, as has been the pattern since at least Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (in which these restrictions on Abd's conduct were originally established) GoRight is continuing to argue on Abd's behalf, and continuing to encourage Abd's misguided interest in counterproductively inserting himself into other editors' disputes. While I am unsure of what form such a remedy should take, perhaps it is time to consider an ArbCom resolution along the lines of "GoRight shall refrain from encouraging other editors to be wikilawyering nuisances." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: I have also previously, explicitly asked Abd not to email me. It is both telling and troubling that he felt the need to ignore my wishes to avoid off-wiki, off-the-record communcations with him in order to evade his editing restrictions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Observation from uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris
Abd is testing the limits again. It's just what he does, like eating or breathing. Thus Arbcom has two choices: (i) you can resign yourselves to dealing with "clarifications" re Abd every few months for as long as he's on the project, or (ii) remove him from the project. It's up to the Arbs how you prefer to spend your time, but experience proves those are your only realistic alternatives. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist
I agree with Fut. Perf. and would endorse enforcement to that effect based on the wording of this restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As stated, I've endorsed the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval
The interpretation is inside the discretion given to admins in WP:AE. The goal of the restriction was keeping Abd out of disputes that he doesn't belong to (because he makes a mess out of those disputes). The interpretation is accomplishing this goal. The restriction has shown that it's effective by cutting short this latest dispute. The restriction has shown that it's useful in cutting drama and disruption before it gets out of hand. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Before the edit that caused this last block, Abd had already tested the boundaries of his voluntary self-limitation. He commented in LirazSiri's page about the advice given to him, after saying that he wouldn't comment more on the dispute. It doesn't look like Abd is taking this seriously.

Abd is also making unwarranted analogies, like comparing himself with a man that is trying to rescue his spouse and children from a fire.

Please let admins at WP:AE take care of this and don't allow Abd to escalate this so he can grandstand about how he is being prevented from saving wikipedia from itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoRight
After FP posted his clarification on Abd's talk page, I took the opportunity to (hopefully obviously) play the role of devil's advocate with respect to this excessive focus on the word originating. To that end I posted a comment which took that focus to it's logical interpretation:


 * "Actually, if you want to focus only on the word "originating" the sanction actually bars Abd from participating in any DR which he did not personally initiate. This leads to the absurd situation where others can initiate DR against Abd and he is barred from even defending himself which indicates how ill-conceived this particular sanction actually is. Arbcom should restructure the entire sanction to implement something that is at least logically consistent. --GoRight (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.

FP then responded with a rather predictable stance:


 * "Wrong. It's not about having played an "originating" role in the DR procedure (e.g. having started a noticeboard thread), but about having played an originating role in the dispute that triggered the DR process. If Abd finds himself in a content disagreement with somebody, and then that other editor or a third party starts a noticeboard thread about Abd, he is of course an "originating party". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.

At which point I was forced to again point out the logical fallacies in FP's thinking:


 * "You simply assert that you are correct. I simply assert that you are incorrect, FP. Who's right? Where has Arbcom indicated that your interpretation is correct? Interestingly, with this post you now seem to be arguing Abd's point for him. If A, B, and C are all arguing about some particular issue and A files a DR action against B but explicitly excludes C how can you argue that C has NOT played an "originating role that triggered the DR process"? On what basis are you claiming that B is an originating party but C is not? Again, your original position stated above makes no logical sense. Either my interpretation as stated above is what was meant, which is clearly absurd and should be corrected, or I guess you are now in agreement with Abd's view and so he was correct all along. In either case your original interpretation is logically flawed. --GoRight (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.

In the end, while FP's interpretation may be convenient for himself and Abd's detractors in general, it makes literally no logical sense at all. At this point I would actually just observe that this sanction is causing significant disruption in its own right given that it (a) isn't clear what it actually means, and (b) isn't clear what it is actually trying to address. Given the level of disruption occurring here it may make more sense to either remove the sanction entirely or restructure it to address a specific identified behavior and word it in a clear and enforceable manner.

Lacking any such substantive changes I fear that we will find ourselves in a never ending cycle of discussion over the whole thing as Abd's detractors come up with even more inventive ways to misinterpret and misapply this ill-defined and perhaps ill-conceived sanction. --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

At some point in the above sequence of events FP had added more clarifications to Abd's talk page:


 * "More clarification for you. If editors A and B are having a content disagreement, and you see them edit-warring or engaging in other forms of questionable behaviour against each other, then the "conflict" in question is, and remains, a conflict between A and B, and only A and B are the originating parties. You may not then engage in any activity criticising, reporting on, or debating with, either A and B because of their behaviour in this dispute. About your interpretation that "If I see an editor violating a policy, and I ask that editor to stop, and the editor refuses and claims the actions are proper, we have a dispute": no, the intent of the sanction is precisely to stop you from spawning these kinds of follow-up meta-disputes. You may only approach an editor asking them to stop a questionable behaviour if that behaviour was already directed at yourself. Same for the issue of when to raise a matter at noticeboards: only if and when it relates to an original disagreement between you and some other editor about your own content editing, and/or if the other editor has explicitly taken the first step addressing you as their opponent in a disagreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"

I then pointed out the logical flaws in this set of interpretations as well:


 * "@FP - Sorry, FP, but this interpretation is clearly absurd. It implies that if Abd observes an edit war in progress that he cannot take action to raise the issue at appropriate venues such as AN3. I see nothing in the sanction nor the discussion surrounding it that suggests that Arbcom intended to bar Abd from taking proper actions to protect the project. If you believe that they did, please indicate where and how they made that point clear. --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"

I can only assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the sanction was never intended to bar Abd from taking proper steps to protect the project from harm when he saw such harm actively occuring but this appears to be exactly what FP is asserting. If a vandal reinserts his garbage into an article after some other editor had previously reverted it, is it the intent of this sanction to actually bar Abd from confronting the vandal who is now in a dispute with another editor? The lengths to which this sanction can be misapplied are endless and disruptive to the project. --GoRight (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Question for TOAT: What part of my statement above appears to be encouraging Abd to do anything at all? Please point me to the specific portions that make such encouragement so that I can correct them forthwith. It is not my intention to encourage any editor to take any particular action, other than to encourage Arbcom to pro-actively eliminate or restructure the sanction in question so as to clarify its intent and to render it more directly enforceable than it is in its current incarnation. It is my belief that doing so will minimize disruption on this issue moving forward.

Let me be clear and direct: I encourage Abd to continue to take his sanctions seriously and to continue to endeavor to adhere to them to the best of his ability given his best understanding thereof. --GoRight (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

FP's current block of Abd: I have opened an AN report [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Future_Perfect.27s_current_block_of_Abd. here]. --GoRight (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned edits in sections written by others: I note the following which was placed in a section written by Abd but was unsigned which makes it appear as though Abd wrote it. Perhaps the author or a clerk could move this comment into the author's own section to avoid confusion on this point? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by typically disinterested Badger Drink
I'm not sure it's possible to clarify things any further with Mr. Abd, whether his obliviousness is innocent or deliberate, the end result is the same. He seems to have confused WP:IAR with WP:IGNOREALLSANCTIONS, which is mysteriously red-linked. And so we move on to the passive-aggressive threats of sockpuppeting (see the "@EnricNavel" section of Abd's most recent missive). I can only speak for myself, but I know I'm shivering in my boots - well done, Abd. "If I decide your sanctions are unfair, I'll totally start socking to get around them, and then what will you do? *swivels black leather chair to survey cityscape with a smirk, silently petting largely disinterested snow-white pussycat*". What a valuable, mature, level-headed contributor to our online encyclopedia! Badger Drink (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz
The tumbleweed seems to be blowing through the arbitrators# section. Does this mean:-
 * 1) The arbs are all fed up with anything and everything Abd related and can't bring themselves to respond
 * 2) The arbs are furiously arguing about the appropriate motion on their mailing list
 * 3) The arbs are supremely indifferent
 * 4) All of the above.

Thank you for your consideration. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
Abd's statement above is over 3,000 words. A bit of brevity would go a long way here. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * This is an invitation to a time-sink. I decline the invitation, and believe that no action on our part is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with FPAS and NYB. Arbcom does not need to act here. Admins are fully capable of handling this. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with Newyorkbrad and have no objections to the explanation (and resulting actions) from FPAS. Risker (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse on all Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason my the interpretation by FPaS would be at fault, or cause for the committee to step in. &mdash; Coren (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with those above.. Nothing for us to handle right now. SirFozzie (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:AE thread
Closed in 1 March during the above request for clarification. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Abd-William_M._Connolley (Abd's restriction)
Initiated by  Enric Naval (talk) at 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)

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


 * latest request for clarification of this restriction

Statement by Enric Naval
Abd has never edited the Ghost article or been involved in disputes there (he is not an originating party of the current dispute there). He has commented in the RfC about pseudoscience in the Ghost article, which is correct and allowed by his ban conditions.

However, now he is trying to insert himself into the dispute by completely removing a contentious lead paragraph that has been under heavy discussion, asserting that "lede should enjoy the highest level of consensus, remove controversial paragraph, not necessary for overview of "ghosts." Lede is fine without it.", and removing the talkpage box that warns about the Pseudoscience arbitration restrictions "remove pseudoscience arbitration notes, this is not a pseudoscience article by Wikipedia standards. Make the cat stick first!". He performed the removals after commenting in the RfC, and he hasn't made any comments on the talk page about any of the two removals. I warned him after his first edit, and he replied that it was the first time that his ban was applied to article edits (as opposed to being applied only to talk pages).

Abd is not an originating party on that dispute, but he is trying to insert himself as the final arbiter of the dispute. It appears to me that Abd is evading the ban restrictions by editing the controversial parts of the article and the talk page without commenting on them.

This seems to be an attempt to evade the ban. Please advice if this is a ban violation or not.

Adendum: read the edit summaries. If Abd had placed them as comment in the talk page, then he would have been in a clear-cut violation of his ban. He has managed to comment on the dispute, while at the same time avoiding a technical violation of his ban. The restriction was intended to keep Abd out of disputes where he wasn't an originating party. Abd has found a way to comment about those disputes without violating the letter of the ban. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Adendum: Well, damn, I hadn't noticed, which is a straight-forward violation of his ban. I'll make a separate request in AE for that diff. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

AE thread for other diffs. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

P.D.D.: The "commenting at polls" clause seemed to work well at first, but now it's just luring Abd into inserting himself in disputes where he was not an originating party (aka, after commenting in the Ghost RfC, he started inserting himself into the whole Ghost-NSF-pseudoscience dispute that spawned the RfC). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Abd
History archive of original response by Abd

The Request here was filed prior to an AE request filed by Enric Naval (permalink) over the same issues. I request that my response there (permalink) be reviewed first, because the examples underlying this request can be seen with evidence and argument regarding each example. My summary there, visible outside collapse, is brief, and even the full discussion is not massive.

This request for clarification is becoming a consideration of other response, such as modifying the sanction to address unspecified problems. I advise against this before understanding the current sanction and what has happened with it. I am currently bound to a very tight interpretation, so tight that I won't edit Wikipedia if it stands, based on Carcharoth's opinion that I'd violated, presumably with what Enric Naval alleged (but Carcharoth indicated that this might be clarified, so it could change).

Until that is clear, other measures are probably moot, a waste of time.

Outside the single acknowledged (inadvertent) violation, number 3 in the list, did I violate the sanction? The goal here should be a clarification that would avoid future disputes. If an MYOB sanction can cause major dispute over interpretation, it's a bad idea for anyone, not just me. (So far, most alleged violations were not found to be so, but that's not a clarification question.) If there were no violations outside the single error, then perhaps the sanction is working, and disruption is coming from other causes, which can then be examined and addressed.

The sanction as it stands is this (I've summarized a piece that is not in contention):

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes [all Wikipedia pages]. He may, however, vote or comment at polls.

What is prohibited with this ban? It's clear: only discussion of a certain kind (outside of polls). Not any other kind of editing. The edits claimed to be violations were not discussion of a dispute unless I was the originating party (i.e., a single blacklist request was filed with a claim, which I disputed, until then the claim was unopposed), by any reasonable classification (but for one, number 3, an error, acknowledged as a violation). None of them were edits that would ordinarily raise an eyebrow. I never dreamed that the ban could apply to article space at all. While my edits may have been "unwise" in some way, they were not ban violations. If they were disruptive, I could be dinged for that directly. The original ban purpose seems to have been preventing Wall-o-TextTM comments alleged to be dominating discussion. In spite of a ban attempt at AN claiming it, I have not been posting walls of text, no example other than the AE report cited above was given, and if that's an improper wall of text, given the context, I'm astonished.

The allegations at AE and here by Enric Naval did not involve poll comments, so removing the poll provision as suggested would fix something that isn't broken. I have avoided using the poll permission as a loophole to allow long comments, and other editors, in those polls, have made much longer ones, and engaged in much back-and-forth threaded argument, which I've also avoided (except for a very minimum of helpful comment, accepted as such, or response to direct question addressed to me). Looking at the RfCs I commented in, I doubt that anyone reasonable would conclude that my comments were a problem there.

Please take this step by step, there is no emergency. I will suggest one possible improvement: allow a mentor, to interpret the ban for me and for others. It is unclear to me why this provision was removed; instead, it should simply have been required that the mentor be approved by ArbComm. Fritzpoll volunteered before and was told, first, that this was not necessary, and then, later, that his arbitrator status prohibited mentoring (the first time I'd seen that -- he was already recusing), and then the provision was removed, so I did not seek another mentor. Fritzpoll has now retired, but a mentor would allow flexibility and a ready path to the ban being lifted. Keep it simple. --Abd (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @SamJohnston:This editor brings up the same evidence over and over, and has now claimed a new offending edit. It's all moot here, because I could have offended many times and that would not change the issue here: what is and what is not "offense." SamJohnston did find one edit that I agreed was a violation, and I promptly struck it as soon as my attention was called to it. Since then, he's brought this edit up over and over. Now he asserts a new one: . That was not a "comment on a dispute," it was a friendly comment, not controversial, a bit jokey, and it caused no disruption at all. SamJohnston's approach is to read "dispute" into everything, because he's clearly looking for mud to toss, and his contributions will show the extent to which he's been tracking me. This is not a comment on his behavior elsewhere, with other editors, and this would be, if I pursued it (I have no intention of that), a dispute between him and me, "originating party," you know. --Abd (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: Bans are special sanctions intended to reduce disruption by defining certain behaviors thought to be causing problems, so that they can be efficiently prevented without the inefficiency of arguing each offense. If a ban is not clear, it can cause more disruption than it prevents. Bans should be very specific, and "wikilawyering" may actually be appropriate, i.e., some insistence on the literal meanings of words. That's not the norm on Wikipedia. I had come to a settled and simple interpretation of the ban, tighter than I'd thought, but at least reasonable, until the present allegations arose.
 * Carcharoth has done two things, and you agreed with one, general advice, but also an opinion was given that I'd violated the ban. If Carcharoth means by this that I violated an unstated (and unclear!) spirit of the ban, that's one thing. If it means that I actually violated the ban itself, as standing, it's another. If I violated the spirit, then the appropriate response would be to clarify the ban so that the spirit is reflected in the language (or designate a means for efficient interpretation, like a mentor). If I violated the ban itself, then we have a very difficult problem, and probably I should be site-banned, because I'm unable to understand bans and therefore contain my behavior. This is a request for clarification. It's not a request for advice to Abd to stop him from being disruptive. Such advice, divorced from a deeper discussion of goals and the value of my participation here, is likely to be misplaced. General editing is part of why I'm here, and I was doing general editing, but it's not the most important part. So, if you value my work at all, and it is, indeed, about "parliamentary procedure," which is about what peer groups, in the past, have found necessary for efficient and fair process, you will, please, attend to Enric Naval's request here, which I join, seeking clarification on a narrow "legal issue." Did I violate the ban? (That is, did I violate it where there is difference of opinion, not with the edit where I acknowledged an inadvertent violation?) ArbComm is free to find that I've been generally disruptive, should it choose -- I don't think that's true -- but the ban doesn't prohibit general disruption, nor is a general disruption ban necessary, it's already prohibited. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @Shell Again, this is a Request for Clarification. I am currently avoiding almost all Wikipedia editing, due to what seems to be an interpretation that I violated the ban, and there was no controversy from Enric Naval over my RfC !votes, and no instance of refusal to discuss based on the ban, beyond one, where I asked that I not be repeatedly questioned within the RfC, which would have pushed me closer to the ban limit. And I did answer the question. Had that editor gone to my talk page to raise an issue about the RfC comment of mine, not about the editor's dispute with others, I'd have responded specifically to that. Nobody complained. So "unfair" to whom? I haven't complained about the ban, though some others have. Please, do consider the ban itself and whether or not I violated it. If I did or didn't (as to what is in dispute), please so state. If I didn't violate the ban itself, but some unstated spirit of the ban, please clarify it. General editing advice does not clarify the ban at all. --Abd (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by SamJohnston
If you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward: I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it includes, but is not limited to talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 02:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there an existing dispute? Yes
 * Did Abd discuss the dispute? Yes (unsigned)
 * Was Abd an originating party? No.
 * Again boiling it down to basics, Abd started editing Ghost, contributed to existing content disputes here and here (so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page here and here and the article was protected for Edit warring / Content dispute the very next day. He then made a similar controversial edit to the Witchcraft article, where the same topic was also an existing debate. To quote Hans Adler: "He tried to help, but he wasn't helpful".


 * The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GoRight's condescending "clarification" doesn't warrant further comment - he won't WP:HEAR it anyway. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 08:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Verbal
Yet again Abd is testing the limits of his sanctions, and clearly not abiding to them. This shows a continuing pattern of continued poor behaviour, and it should be stopped. Abd again injected himself into a existing dispute with which he had no previous involvement, one which had more or less been resolved, and has inflamed the situation - making matters worse. This oft repeated pattern reflects on Abd's motivations for being on wikipedia. If he wants to show he is here for the good of the project then he should show that in his editing, and not by testing his restrictions, gaming admins, and making situations harder to resolve. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  12:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Hans Adler

 * Original comment

I am commenting here because I am heavily involved in the situation at Ghost. From the point of view of my watchlist, around early March the complex battle between fringe fans and pseudo-sceptics has flared up again after many quiet months. As in earlier cases the mainstream is in danger of getting pulverised between two extremist fronts. Since Abd is often vocally painted as being on the fringe side, I want to say very clearly that his unhelpful intervention at Ghost was an attempt to support the mainstream against the very real danger of being marginalised and treated as fringe. Hans Adler 10:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by GoRight
Can Arbcom please put a stop to the abuse and harassment of Abd that this sanction has caused. This disruption is unnecessary. --GoRight (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the analysis by SamJohnston above : I wish to thank SJ for providing a thorough recitation of the most pertinent edits which have lead to this request for clarification, however his analysis appears to be flawed on a number of points so allow me to clear a few things up for the benefit of all:


 * (1) As the arbiters are no doubt aware, the most recent version of Abd's sanction can be found here, and it currently reads (emphasis is mine):


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


 * (2) Future Perfect had proposed and implemented an interpretation of the sanction at a previous request for clarification. The short version of that clarification is as follows (emphasis is mine):


 * The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.


 * (3) It should be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that the operative phrases in both the sanction itself and FP's clarification are "discussing any dispute" and "comment about any conflict", respectively.


 * (4) It should likewise be plain, and therefore not confusing to anyone, that words have specific meanings which are used, in the case of a sanction, to convey the intent of that sanction. Please note that the meanings of the words "discussing any dispute" and/or "comment about any conflict" are distinct and non-overlapping with the words "participating in a dispute".


 * (5) Even a cursory review of the edits highlighted by SJ above clearly demonstrates that Abd was merely "participating in a dispute". So, as currently written and clarified Abd's edits in no way violated the letter or the spirit of the sanction as it has been articulated thus far.  Abd's edits are completely consistent with any editor who is simply participating in a normal content dispute with a proper focus on the content in question and without extraneous meta discussion of the dispute or its participants.


 * (6) If it is Arbcom's intention to prevent Abd from editing any articles where there happens to be content disputes on topics for which he has an opinion and wishes to express it, then I would submit that the current wording of the sanction and the feedback that has been given to Abd is wholly insufficient to have conveyed that particular meaning and intent. Thus, if that truly is Arbcom's intention then they should make that intention clear via this clarification because the existing sanction and the feedback surrounding it clearly do NOT address the simple act of editing and participating in content disputes as we see here.

Hopefully this helps to clarify some of the facts in this case for anyone who may have been confused by them. --GoRight (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC) I apologize if anyone feels that this post is condescending. That was not my intention. I merely seek to highlight some rather straight forward but highly pertinent facts regarding this request. --GoRight (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses:

@Carcharoth : The edits that refactored my section are here. --GoRight (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@Carcharoth : "... that Abd and those involved in the original case(s) will stay apart (that includes GoRight and others as well)." - I am unclear as to your intended meaning here. Could you please clarify? Do you mean that (a) I and other Abd supporters should also stay away from Abd, (b) I and the others in the original case should stay away from each other (yes please), (c) both, or (d) neither (i.e. something else)? --GoRight (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Mathsci
Why can't Abd find something innocuous to edit just for once? Mathsci (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Carcharoth: I imagine that most users at this stage, myself included, would avoid initiating any kind of sanction against Abd, simply because of the total drain on time that would result. Mathsci (talk) 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth. You seem to be criticizing me below for writing - in a 12 word sentence - essentially exactly the same thing you wrote about Abd's editing. The main point in my evidence to the ArbCom case concerned Abd's return to mainstream content editing. That is still my hope now. Why are you suggesting otherwise? Mathsci (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Carcharoth. Are you now suggesting that at some point I have edited a contentious article? Is this really what you intended to write? Please remember that the problematic editor here is Abd. You, I and others might hope that his editing patterns will improve; but in the end Abd is the only one responsible for what he chooses to edit. Please be more careful what you write. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Observation by TenOfAllTrades
GoRight has been a consistent apologist for Abd's disruptive conduct since at least the Abd/WMC Arbitration. GoRight's encouragement and endorsement is absolutely the last thing that Abd needs. Further, GoRight has been repeatedly blocked recently for his own counterproductive approach to Wikipedia editing. His attacks on Enric Naval isn't pretty, either &mdash; complaints about other editors' 'harassment' of Abd might be more credible if GoRight didn't seem so prepared to overlook and enable Abd's misconduct. It's well past tiresome; a MYOB restriction on GoRight would not be out of place.

Finally, Abd's three-month ban imposed in the Arbitration failed to drive home the point, and a longer – if not permanent – ban on Abd would be appropriate now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments struck at Carcharoth's request. My concerns about GoRight's role in disrupting enforcement of provisions related to Abd's conduct remain, however, and I look forward to ArbCom bringing forth a MYOB motion in the very near future.  (A further request for clarification &mdash; is Carcharoth's request on his own initiative, or is he speaking formally, on behalf of the entire Committee?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, don't you realize that you've just declared such a MYOB restriction here, by personal fiat and in an entirely ad hoc manner? Either get the Committee on board with you and make a formal statement – I don't mind if you tell me to butt out as long as GoRight can be made to stop stirring the pot; his hyperbolic attacks were the only reason I offered a brief, diff-supported, 93-word comment – or withdraw your own instructions.  Otherwise, you're putting the clerks in the awkward position of acting as your own personal enforcers, rather than as agents of the Committee and (by extension) the community.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that it is entirely proper for me to comment about the actions taken by Arbitrators as part of their participation in this Request for Clarification. I have struck out any mention of particular problematic editors' conduct, though I do still believe that it is perfectly within scope for the ArbCom, as part of a Clarification, to comment on the conduct of editors seeking to enforce (or not) an Arbitration remedy in the lead up to the Request.
 * I am not comfortable with suppressing mention of what I feel are valid points related to the processes followed by Arbitrators in responding to this Request. I will note that my only participation in or comment on the extant dispute here was my brief comment above. I have had nothing to do with any of the other discussions in any of the other fora, and I don't believe posting a seven-sentence note – even if arguably tangential – constitutes an abuse of the ArbCom's time or attention.  I have affirmed that I would support a proper MYOB restriction if brought in an appropriate venue, however I object to Carcharoth attempting to implement one himself on this one page.  (I observe that at least one other Request on this page contains an explicit request for a motion to which Carcharoth responded positively.)
 * I do not give permission or approval for anyone to make edits to my signed comments on this page, however I recognize when I'm outgunned, and I won't edit war with a clerk or Arb &mdash; so don't go getting silly ideas about needing to issue blocks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * Could a clerk please either ask the parties above to remove, refactor, or strike commentary about anyone other than Abd, or do so themselves? My reading of the above thread is that this would apply to most of what Hans Adler and GoRight said (a brief comment about the dispute at Ghost will suffice - there is no need to name names here). And the first paragraph of what TenOfAllTrades said can go as well. This is not a clarification about other editors at the Ghost article or GoRight. That will help keep this clarification request on topic. If the off-topic stuff is removed, could whoever does that (whether the original editor or a clerk) please leave diffs to indicate what was removed. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - no longer needed, parties have largely redacted or struck the off-topic comments themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Recused from all Abd. Steve Smith (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recuse. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  08:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How MYOB (mind your own business) sanctions work in practice seems to be problematic. My view is that MYOB sanctions are a last resort, and it is up to the editor under a MYOB sanction to avoid controversial areas and go and find something productive to do in an uncontroversial area where there are no disputes. An editor placed under a MYOB sanction is essentially being told that in general they bring more heat than light to discussions, and even trying to sort out whether they are making useful contributions (as here) is a time sink. Abd, you should find quiet areas to work in until your restrictions expire (or until you have accumulated enough evidence of improved conduct to appeal your restrictions). Find a quiet area to work in and then if others turn up, any dispute is not one that you will have started. Turning up on a page where there is an existing dispute does breach the terms of your restrictions as I interpret them. If you (Abd) or others would like the restriction clarified to make that clearer, that could probably be done. I agree with Hans Adler about the ghosts and pseudoscience matter, but that should be a separate clarification (possibly related to one of the cases that concerned pseudoscience). Carcharoth (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to recent comments, it might be simpler to bar all participants to the original case from filing clarification or enforcement actions against each other. It is not just Abd that needs to back off here, but some of the others from both sides as well. It has become clear that the original participants in the case are not stepping back and letting others deal with this, but are all perpetuating the battles going on here. Some have asked why Abd can't find innocuous areas to edit? I would apply that to others as well. It tends to be the case that only the original participants in a case can be bothered to request enforcement of arbitration sanctions, but I don't think this is actually healthy. If someone's participation somewhere is truly disruptive, then others will file enforcement requests. However, this would only work if everyone subject to arbitration sanctions were forced to include in their signature and on their talk page a little scarlet letter so people editing with them were aware of this. But as you can tell, my use of the term 'scarlet letter' shows that I don't really think it is a good idea. Still, what can be done about the problem where participants to a case watch each other like hawks and call for enforcement of sanctions? Could those who have commented here state whether they have done so because they were involved in the Ghost dispute, or whether because they follow these pages and comment on previous cases they were involved with (hint: the former is OK, the latter is generally unhelpful). Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, have you counted how many of the people who have commented above were involved in the original arbitration case? The arbitrators are well aware of the previous case. Enric Naval, you (Mathsci), GoRight and Verbal made statements and gave evidence. TenOfAllTrades made workshop proposals. I haven't found anything in the original case from SamJohnston, so he probably became aware of this another way. But do you see what I mean about how frustrating it can be for arbitrators when a request for clarification just erupts into arguments between those that were present at the original case? Why not just make brief statements and leave us to attempt to clarify things? I would propose to limit previous case participants to making a brief statement narrowly restricted to the clarification request. No arguments, no back-and-forth. Just brief statements that explain how you got involved in the present dispute (merely seeing it pop up on your watchlist here and deciding to comment is not a sufficient reason to comment). I would apply the same to arbitration enforcement as well. It would cut a lot of the arguments out and allow people to get on with enforcements and clarifications and amendments, without the associated noise. In a nutshell: brief comments that must stay on-topic; no back-and-forth; and step back and let others comment and make the decision. It would make things quicker as well. Carcharoth (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking that, TenOfAllTrades. Limiting the scope of this request is purely my initiative. Hopefully other arbitrators will comment here at some point to state their views. If they want to widen the scope to include others, that can happen, but I think it should be at the initiative of an arbitrator, not someone involved in the original case (unless a separate request is filed). With the amount of work on ArbCom's desk, I am trying to limit the scope of clarifications so they can be dealt with in good order. By all means file a separate request if you think you have a case to make, but folding it into this one is unlikely to be helpful. Also, the editor would in most cases have to be under current ArbCom sanctions unless the conduct is egregious (according to arbitrators, not according to the filing party). Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the statements made above, and all are now on-topic for this request except for the statements and comments from TenOfAllTrades. Others have refactored as requested, while TenOfAllTrades has refactored but followed up by continuing to make off-topic comments on the conduct of GoRight. Suggest that he take concerns about GoRight's conduct (and my conduct as well, if he wishes) to the relevant talk pages. The single unstruck sentence about Abd is relevant to this request, while the concerns about others disrupting enforcement of provisions related to Abd's conduct can be stated in general terms, and arbitrators can request more details and specific names if needed. After that is done, it will then be possible to get back to the point of this thread, which should be making the clarification that Enric Naval asked for. Carcharoth (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

@Agreed with those above. Abd, it's best for you to find somewhere quiet and uncontroversial to work at this time. SirFozzie (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the further strikes, TenOfAllTrades. I have no objection to you proposing a motion about Abd, but my view is that extending proposed motions to include others should be done by arbitrators (in part because we would then formally notify them). My current thoughts on this matter are to formally propose a motion to tighten Abd's existing restrictions to remove the clause that allowed him to participate in polls and requests for comments. I should clarify that I'm still only pondering on something further about how to manage the interactions between Abd and those who originally participated at the case - there is no de facto MYOB clause in effect and no-one should interpret my comments that way (that would require full voting on a motion). My hope (per Mathsci) is that Abd and those involved in the original case(s) will stay apart (that includes GoRight and others as well). It is entirely possible that both my proposed motions (one still only being considered) will fail, but that is how I see things at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To GoRight: I meant (a), but only those that were involved in the case. The idea is both that Abd finds somewhere quiet to edit, and also that those involved in the case neither support him nor drag him down. He should stand or fall on his own merits. It shouldn't need those involved in the original cases to pop up and reiterate what happened there. Too many people cluster around controversial articles trying to contribute their bit or to object to what others are saying or to support those they agree with (the agreement and support should be for the content, not for the editors). Sometimes a different approach is needed. If someone finds themselves editing controversial articles all the time, that is not really a good sign, no matter how "right" you think you are (anyone reading this and thinking that it is OK editing controversial articles all the time if your edits are good, the long-term effect is still degrading). Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with Carcharoth's advice to Abd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC) Noting that Brad is talking here about the first comment I made. Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Carcharoth's clarification about how Abd's sanction is supposed to work and also encourage him to avoid polls, RfCs and the like as well for the time being. Its not fair to "vote" somewhere and then tell editors that you cannot discuss the issue further because of your restriction. Find some nice quiet articles where you can participate fully. Shell   babelfish 14:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to lift sanction: Abd-William M. Connolley
archival

Initiated by  Abd (talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * Notified.
 * Notified.
 * Notified.

Statement by Abd
I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.

This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions,, based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided


 * 1. Continued combative editing on Talk: Cold fusion  .  By themselves, not necessarily actionable.  As part of an overall picture of you continuing problematic behavior that caused Guy's initial report, however, a component.
 * This assumed that the cause of JzG's report was my "combative editing." As can be shown if needed, JzG had taken every occasion to attack me and other editors who interfered with his agenda re cold fusion. The first recent JzG report was over editing of my Sandbox, where I'd been studying edit ratios per claims of page domination at Talk:Cold fusion. JzG similarly, early last year, initiated and obtained a topic ban for User:Pcarbonn, linked below, and in neither case did he disclose his prior involvement or ArbComm sanctions on this topic. As a COI editor, I carefully refrained from tendentious editing of the article, and confined myself to Talk, hopefully civilly and focused on what was relevant. Having become expert on the topic, and knowing policies and guidelines well, I often had substantial comment to make! Further, I'd responded to concerns and had largely abandoned editing because current conditions with article ownership, as can be shown if needed, made it mostly useless.
 * Those three edits were proper responses, where I had made edits expecting them to be non-controversial, and was reverted, and the sense of what I stated in them would be sustained at RfC, I believe. They were not lengthy. In particular, the arguments over lenr-canr.org were long ago settled, with consensus, when carefully addressed, and the placement of interwiki links is standard practice, and the only reason it was opposed here was an opinion about me. (If the argument "self-published" were true, it would be true of every WP article as to See Also, which is what this amounted to.) Cold fusion is covered by the same overall neutrality policy as Wikipedia, but implements it differently, not being subject to the restrictions of an encyclopedia, and any WP editor is invited to help with resources at Wikiversity. Readers would want this WV link, I believe, as a place to discuss cold fusion or ask questions. Otherwise they do it at Talk:Cold fusion and are often troutslapped for it.


 * ''2. Your behavior on meta taken in totality.  By itself, not necessarily actionable.  As part of an overall picture, however, a component. permanent link to what GWH would have seen at the time, supplied in place of live link he used. Final discussion as closed linked below.
 * In order to judge my behavior at meta, one must indeed have an overall, "total," perspective. Notice that the original request at meta was short and simple, and was an attempt to clean up damage covered by RfAr/Abd and JzG. Because of tendentious argument against delisting there, beginning with JzG's personal attack, it was necessary to answer prior and repeated claims in detail. I know that is irritating, but I knew from experience what was necessary at meta, with the blacklist admins. The result of my meta request was delisting, finally undoing damage done by JzG or at his request, more than a year earlier, see RfAr/Abd and JzG. As a side-effect, and without further request, lyrikline.org, also problematically blacklisted (JzG not involved), was delisted a few days later, attention having been called to it. GWH did not see the close, because he banned me before it happened. This was the full discussion.


 * ''3. Your behavior on the AN thread itself. You were offered numerous opportunities to defuse the situation or take a clean approach that didn't lead to a confrontation, and chose to spurn all of them. Again, a component of an overall picture.
 * I'm completely unclear on this. To an administrator who does not realize the situation with the filer of the notice, I could look stubborn. The confrontation was already happening, and not just there, and I'd already backed down in many ways. I did not pursue conflict, but I was pursued, as I've been ever since this case, it led to my almost total abandonment of Wikipedia editing, as edits I never thought might be violations -- mostly of the MYOB ban -- were alleged, and some resulted in blocks, or in extensive discussion at AE, which is, indeed, irritating!


 * GWH blamed me for the "confrontation," when there had been no confrontation other than the kind of edits he cited, which he acknowledged as not being a problem "in themselves." The "confrontation" arose when JzG filed the AN report. GWH gagged a hen for making some mild squawking noises, ignoring the fox, who has long been acting to ban editors. (-- note that no use of tools while involved is alleged here, I've seen nothing recent like that.)


 * I am not here requesting clarification on the so-called MYOB ban, nor on the alleged violation of the interaction ban that was the basis of my last block, this is only about the cold fusion topic ban.


 * Jehochman tried to mediate, as he had before (he filed the prior arbitration case with JzG.) His suggestion was, however, for me, that I abandon editing even Talk:cold fusion, totally. Problem is, almost all the editors remaining were either with or supportive of the POV editing that had long done such damage at Cold fusion, by exclusion of what is in peer-reviewed secondary sources in mainstream journals, for about six years now, and in other ways, or they were ineffective, not knowing the sources and not knowing dispute resolution process. I know the reliable sources and proper process. And as a COI editor, I was supposedly encouraged to participate on the Talk page. Note: I became COI only after the subject ArbComm cases. I was originally concerned only about the abusive blacklisting as a process issue. Then I researched the topic, and started to work for article balance.

By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field!

While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.

This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.

To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.

Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.

I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.

An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.

I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.

Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link to this recent review.

Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. --Abd (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @JzG: Lie: 2 or 3 words. Correction: Many. JzG is a master of sound-bite attack. Each story sounds plausible, but he's repeating old arguments against consensus, evidence free. He knows that editors will often believe him unless they investigate. What appeal was previously rejected? --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @JzG: Please review and check what JzG has written. If he's right, I'm totally insane, and Wikipedia is the least of my worries. (I might be insane anyway, to imagine that ArbComm might review this.) His arguments about lenr-canr.org were rejected by ArbComm and everywhere, lenr-canr.org has been delisted, at my request. (And that led to this ban!) The copyright issue was considered in detail, by many, links have been provided. RfAr/Abd and JzG was based on his actions re that site, and confirmed my claims. Durova had warned me that if I raised that case, I'd be banned from cold fusion. But I didn't care about cold fusion, I cared about Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jclemens, PhilKnight: The bans to be lifted were not declared by ArbComm, they were requested by JzG at AN, for Pcarbonn, and granted under General Sanctions for the subject case after AN, for me, also based on JzG AN request. The General Sanctions ban requires ArbComm review. My behavior changed radically, I followed COI rules. Please review. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Risker: You made your views plain in the RfAr. If you are not interested in the sequelae, in what the decision you proposed, and that passed as a compromise, has wrought, I can wash my hands of this. But do, please, consider the case of Pcarbonn. Same story: JzG attacks, editor banned, supposedly based on the same POV as got him banned before. Does ArbComm ban based on POV? If so, it's making content decisions. Is JedRothwell banned? by whom or how? (JzG. Blocked by MastCell as a favor to JzG, based on no misbehavior. Not banned.) What does Jed Rothwell have to do with this? Good luck, you have a mess, and intense denial isn't going to fix it. If you had paid more attention in the subject RfAr, you might have avoided the Climate Change RfAr. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @GWH. I did not intend to stray beyond the ban boundaries, the edit on the whitelist page, I did not expect to be at all controversial, and no content issues were addressed, purely what should have been a helpful procedural suggestion. It got complicated today, and I've been aware of the edge, and concerned about it. I will, therefore, effective immediately, cease all activity on Wikipedia, even remotely related to cold fusion, aside from what you seem to have routinely permitted, i.e., occasional non-contentious comment on user talk pages, with consenting users, and excepting what may seem necessary here on this page. If you want something tighter than that, please let me know. I am not restricted at meta.
 * As to not helping Wikipedia, you may be right. That, in fact, was why I almost entirely gave up back in October. I was a COI editor, dependent entirely upon voluntary acceptance of my points by other editors. If nobody listens, it's a waste of time. If ArbComm is willing to tolerate what it -- and you -- are obviously willing to tolerate and ignore, in order to get rid of too much discussion, then it will get what it allows. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2011

Developments

 * request for routine removal from whitelist, JzG makes contentious comment with no necessity at all. See discussion on his Talk page. There was never any "spamming." If ArbComm and the community ignore this repeated pattern, concern for the real cause of disruption on the wiki has been lost.
 * JzG use of tools while involved, today. unilateral addition of lenr-canr.org to local blacklist, use of spam blacklist for content control, no discussion, no specific copyright violation shown, involved admin, log of action. See RfAr/Abd and Jzg: --Abd (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JzG has again requested blacklisting at meta, based on "copyvio" showing his dogged attack on lenr-canr.org, that started long before I was involved. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That blacklisting was reverted by DGG, see User talk:JzG on the spam blacklist. Some sanity left, anyway.
 * Is NW going to notify the involved editors that the link in their notice won't work any more? Looked like the arbs were accepting it here. What amendment is being requested? None that I know of. This was under General Sanctions. Ah, well, their business. --Abd (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other JzG
Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.

His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.

The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.

But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, Abd's trotting out yet again of the "blacklisting abuse" meme, a point refuted a thousand times, is further evidence that with Abd there is no way any issue can ever be settled other than by giving him what he wants. There was no "damage". Lenr-canr is a fringe advocacy site littered with copyright violations and repeatedly spammed by its owner and, after his banning, by Pcarbonn and Abd proxying for him. Neither denies being on friendly terms with Rothwell. This is why dealing with Abd is, quite literally, impossible: there is no known way to get him to drop something once he has it in his head. Ever. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert
I don't see that the situation has changed. I appreciate that Abd is continuing to address this via appeal procedures and within the system, but I don't see that the fundamental behavior has changed.

Abd - Additionally, while reviewing this, I came across your comments on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist over the last couple of days regarding lenr-canr.org. I am concerned that this activity violated the topic ban, which is in effect now.

I believe that you should stop that conversation until and unless Arbcom changes its mind below and revokes the sanction, in which case it would be a moot point anyways.

Currently, the topic ban goes until... October 5, 2011, one year from the AN discussion. I am greatly concerned that, if things continue in this direction, it will have to be reimposed for at least another year. Abd - I appreciate your devotion to this topic and you willingness to keep working within Wikipedia's system with regards to appeals and so forth, but your behavior on this topic is just not ok. It's not doing you, or Wikipedia, any good.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Noting for the record - Future Perfect at Sunrise issued a 2 week block based on the issue I raised above about the blacklist talk page. .  A unblock request was denied by Stephan Schultz, with some subsequent discussion.  It is somewhat unusual for parties or appellants to be blocked during discussion, so I believe it should be in the record here that it's happened.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Note from TenOfAllTrades
Abd has decided that his current block shouldn't prevent him from POINTy editing while logged out, purportedly to remove previously-made comments which might violate his topic ban, but principally as a way to stir things up: summary provided by Abd himself. (I presume based on past performance that he's waiting for someone to block his IP so he can file another rambling unblock request, explaining how unreasonable it is for us to block him while he is trying so hard to clean up after himself, and why is everyone being so unfair?) Since Abd has such an extensive history of boundary-testing, I would recommend that the ArbCom short-circuit the nonsense, save everyone some time, and ban him already. He's declared that he's going to edit through a block or ban anyway, but we might as well dot the i and cross the t. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Moved to the amendments page. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Is this a request for clarification, or a request for amendment? If the desire is that a specific sanction be terminated, I'm not seeing why this should be the former, rather than the latter. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBUREAU. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This does appear to be a request for amendment, and perhaps we should request a clerk moves this discussion. However, I also agree with Stephan that we shouldn't worry too much about such matters. Anyway, based on the comments so far, I'm more in agreement with Guy than Abd. In order for the sanctions imposed on Abd to be relaxed, I would have to be convinced that he has changed. That could be achieved in a number of ways, such as collaborative editing, and recognition of past mistakes. However, based on his statement above, I'm unconvinced that he has changed sufficiently for the imposed sanctions to be relaxed. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I wasn't worried about such matters... I was actually using it as an excuse to try and elicit a succinct statement from ABD about what he actually is looking for, to confirm what I think I was reading. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on Abd's statement, he still fails to understand why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. I cannot support permitting him to return to this topic area when it is clear that he will return to exactly the editing pattern that resulted in his removal in the first place. This applies whether this is an amendment or a clarification. Risker (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed with those above, I see no reason to lift the topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline, broadly per Risker.   Roger Davies  talk 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Decline, Risker sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs)
 * Decline; I think it's clear from his statement that Abd still fails to see why the sanction was imposed in the first place. While regrettable, this leaves us with no choice but to keep the restriction in place.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Abd is now indefinitely blocked, and has proclaimed his intention to ... well, I can't tell exactly what he's proclaimed his intention to do, but it's certainly not consistent with acceptable behavior here. I think this request can be closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

A proposed amendment to a sanctions remedy
A motion has been proposed that would amend a sanctions remedy in this case. It would replace the remedy in this case that allows administrators to unilaterally apply sanctions to editors within the designated topic area with a standardized remedy that essentially allows for the same thing. Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected. To comment on this proposal, please go to Arbitration/Requests/Motions. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Motion: To rename Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

 * ''Enacted by <font color="#800020">Mlpearc (<font color="#CFB53B">powwow ) 02:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

3) The case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley is renamed to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion is created as a redirect to Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion, and Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion 2 is created as a redirect to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. For the purposes of procedure, the index of topics with an active discretionary sanctions provision will be updated with the new title, but previous references to the Abd-William M. Connolley decision do not require to be updated. The rename of the Abd-William M. Connolley case to Cold fusion 2 is only for clarity in reference, and does not invalidate any previous action or pending sanctions taken under the provisions of this case.

For this motion, there are 13 active non-recused arbitrators, so 7 is a majority.


 * Support
 * Proposed. AGK  [•] 01:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * --Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Courcelles 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay,  Roger Davies  talk 05:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Recused on matters regarding WMC, but if I did vote, I would support very weakly. I think that cases should be named to what they're about, but not strongly enough to oppose. SirFozzie (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators