Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence

What's in a "wheel war"?
Bishonen writes "George has not wheel-warred". I find myself disagreeing with this, not because of any difference of opinion over the facts, but because we apparently disagree over what constitutes "wheel warring".

Maybe I have hard line about this, but my understanding is that any time an administrator willfully undoes another administrator's intended action without bothering to discuss it either with them and/or with the larger community, then he has engaged in a wheel war.

I may be mistaken, but my reading of the time line is that George did not engage in discussion with anyone prior to reverting WMC, and neither did WMC engage in discussion before reverting George. Hence, by my personal standards they have both wheel-warred. Avraham is marginal. He involved himself in the dispute way more quickly than I think is reasonable, but he at least had the benefit of some discussion at WP:AE.

Apparently Bishonen believes that George gets the first revert for free, i.e. his actions don't amount to wheel warring until he repeats them. Personally, I think this is both bad policy (i.e. admins should never revert each other without at least cursory discussion and pursuit of consensus), and that it is not in keeping with the traditional understanding of what consititutes a "wheel war" as I have understood it. Dragons flight (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first sentance of the policy "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions — specifically, unblocking and reblocking a user; undeleting and redeleting; or unprotecting and reprotecting a page. " on clear language reading supports your definition. The second and third sentances, in bold on the policy page "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it. Do not continue a chain of administrative reversals without discussion." then seem to imply "re-" doing is what constitutes a problem. The language should be clarified, and I support Dragons flight's interpretation.-- The Red Pen of Doom  02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wheel warring is to administrative actions as edit warring is to editing actions. Both can encompass a variety of different behaviours, and whether a given action constitutes wheel or edit warring depends on the context in which the action was taken. Discussion (both by the person taking the action, and also contemporaneous discussion by other people) is undoubtedly an important consideration. --bainer (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I see any administrative action that would need to be undone with such speed that a comment on the originating admin's talk page couldn't take place first. Perhaps I am missing something.-- The Red Pen of Doom  03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wheel_war/Examples has:
 * Case: "Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin A blocks User X again."
 * Interpretation: "Admin A has violated 0WW." (Nothing on Admin B)
 * Case: "Admin A blocks User X. Admin B unblocks User X. Admin C blocks User X. Admin D unblocks User X. Admin E blocks User X. Admin F unblocks User X"
 * Interpretation: "No admin has violated 0WW"
 * According to that page, Geogre hasn't violated 0WW, and I support Bishonen's interpretation. ---Sluzzelin talk  05:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The bottom of your examples gives:
 * "Wikipedia:Wheel warring (undoing an administrative action by another administrator) without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable..." -- "Jimbo Wales blocked Joeyramoney for a week, and Karmafist subsequently intentionally removed the block." Remedy given: "For wheel-warring with Jimbo Wales, Karmafist is to remain desysopped for two weeks after this case is closed...."
 * In that case, a single reversal was sanctioned as wheel warring. Your examples page refers specifically to "bright-line" examples in the top of it's presentation, and I do not consider it an exhaustive list.  In cases where A undid action by B, it may not be a bright line since mitigating factors like discussion exist.  If they then continue to war, they will definitely cross a bright-line for wheel warring, but I'd consider that the state of engaging in a wheel can exist before that. In the example before us here, I consider George's actions to have been part of a wheel war since no attempt at any amicable resolution was made.


 * In addition, even if you don't want to call it "wheel warring", I would certainly agree with Arbcom that "undoing an administrative action by another administrator without first attempting to resolve the issue is unacceptable". Dragons flight (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Consider the relation between those bright-line examples and wheel warring in general as akin to the relation between the three-revert rule and edit warring. --bainer (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Injunction at proposed decision page
Not everyone may have watchlisted all the pages yet, so dropping off a note here to point out a temporary injunction that is being voted on: Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A show trial?
I have not been following the ArbCom's activities since last year. Now that I look at the page, it seems they have only two sorts of cases - secret trials and show trials. As if the arbs think a show trial may counterbalance a secret trial. Why don't you resign, guys, to make everyone's life easier? Only you are to blame for where we are today. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't very helpful or relevant to the page. 1  !=  2  03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it was rather prophetic. The evidence has been entered on the Workshop page by Kirill. If Kirill would post the evidence here, then it would look more like a normal case, rather than a prosecution by an arbitrator. Carcharoth (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since when can arbiters not perform independent investigation? Since when are we sticklers for what page information is presented on. The evidence itself seems sound. 1  !=  2  21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To Weighted Companion Cube
Please withdraw the attempt to ascribe motive regarding my post. What I saw unfolding was a single link to a single report and active contentious discussion at the workshop page. So I included background regarding both the editorial position of that particular source cited and other reliable sources that specifically covered William Connolley's work at Wikipedia. Regarding the latter, I collected all sources available within the first 150 Google returns without regard for what conclusion that source drew about him. It is reasonable and proper to provide this type of background as a supplement to your very brief presentation.

Published opinions are divided regarding the global warming issue and the value of William Connolley's work at that topic. The Arbitration Committee has scrutinized his actions in that area before and this case has no direct bearing on that subject, except in the sense of how Wikipedia dispute resolution processes handle notable experts. Durova Charge! 18:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, thanks. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think most wikipedians want to see the global warming deniers' POV prominently mentioned on the global warming article, so your comment is going to be counterproductive (from your POV) :) Count Iblis (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think that most Wikipedians are interested in the core philosophy of the project. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 23:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well I do think Wikipedians are interested in the core philosophy of the project; it's becoming increasingly difficult to see how your evidence connects to it. When you first posted I interpreted it in the best light possible and supposed you meant to open consideration of the effect that possible sanctions on William Connolley could have on the willingness of other experts to contribute under their real names.  That would be a worthwhile discussion.  Your subsequent posts lead in a different direction.  Unless I misunderstand you very much (in which case please clarify), you are seeking to try William Connolley in the media for actions that are both unrelated to this case and outside the mandate of the Arbitration Committee.  That is deeply at odds with Wikipedia's core principles.  I hope the Committee and the community repudiate such tactics.  It may be William Connolley's administrative decisions merit remedy, but certainly not upon such a basis as this.  Durova  Charge! 00:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree here. This more seems like an attempt to piggyback off actual mistakes that WMC made to try to re-fight past battles. WCC, I'll tell you what.. why don't you share with us the past name that you had when you found yourself in conflict with WMC over Global-Warming articles, and let us judge for ourselves the situation. SirFozzie (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That won't be happening. And Durova is incorrect as well - the issue is solely Connolley's attitude toward the project, its contributors, and how he handles those he disagrees with. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say, then, I'm not going to put much faith into anything you say. If you're not willing to let us judge the situation for ourselves, then we have to consider the source. A user who claims he was wronged in the past, but won't let anyone see for themselves. A great many of our indef blocked and banned users would use the same argument. SirFozzie (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have to agree totally with Fozzie above. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's quite easy to do that, isn't it? Your problem, not mine, as the facts stand on their own. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if User:Weighted Companion Cube is a relative of our good friend User:Scibaby and should be added to this list Count Iblis (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is exceedingly unlikely. The editting patterns are quite different. And in addition, Raul has been pretty active in ferreting out Scibaby clones. Given that WCC has been editting for many months it seems unlikely that any Scibaby clone could have been active that long without already getting caught. Dragons flight (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He's obviously somebody's alternate account. He even admits that "In another life, I gave up on editing in areas where Connolley was involved due to this exact issue." Would be nice for him to tell us who, or else a lot of time is going to be spent determining if that other account is a banned user (of which there are a number who had grudges against WMC). - Merzbow (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm an alternate account of a longtime user, but I assure you I'm not banned. That's as far as I'm willing to go. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * User:SEWilco? Count Iblis (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the kind of situation that persuades me our sock policy needs updating. This may be within its letter, but certainly far outside its spirit.  Durova  Charge! 02:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, because Connolley and company have been very kind to those who dare face them. Interestingly enough, I'm not a global warming skeptic, but I'm already sick of being witchhunted for daring to bring this up. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You are arguably already violating SOCK; you seem to be "artificially stirring up controversy" on multiple arbitration cases and in other places like ANI, complete with a personal attack or two. - Merzbow (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right about the Sidaway quote, which was dumb of me, but this is more of a personal protection thing. No controversy was stirred up by my addition of evidence to the project page until certain editors decided to make it one. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)It would be helpful of you to go just a tiny bit further. Can you tell us if any of your other accounts are blocked, or under any sanction or parole (imposed by ArbCom or by an admin)?  Finally, were you involved (made a statement, gave evidence, were the subject of a finding of fact, etc.) in any previous Arbitration, RfC, or other formal dispute resolution process involving WMC?   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the above. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 02:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Purposefully evasive answers make you appear more trustworthy.-- The Red Pen of Doom  03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Two things. First, in the opening post I asked WCC to withdraw an attempt to attribute motive to me from his evidence. He not only refused, he compounded the problem at the workshop. Again, I object strongly and request retraction. Second, the timing of the story prompts me to ask: was the reporter tipped to coincide with this arbitration case? Durova Charge! 03:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Will you be withdrawing yours? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 03:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since you have yet to contradict the one occasion on which I did speculate in that direction--and did so in couched terms unlike your bold assertions--there is no reason for me to retract anything. You did assert I was mistaken about something, but it was unrelated.  I repeat the second question: was the reporter tipped to coincide with this arbitration case?  Durova  Charge! 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish I had the power or cared so much as to tip the media off on this. Now you're venturing into conspiracy land. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 11:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. Considering the extent of the conspiracies you have alleged, the question should not be surprising.  Durova  Charge! 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the fifth editorial by Lawrence Solomon since April to criticize Wikipedia, and one of several he has written critical of WMC in particular. While one might wonder why Mr. Solomon's editors allow him to keep treading over the same ground, I don't think one should read anything special into the timing of this piece. Dragons flight (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is making any assertions, merely asking questions. Under these very unusual circumstances it's reasonable to ask.  Durova  Charge! 03:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since WCC's original account isn't blocked, this probably applies: "Sockpuppet accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project, such as policy debates." I'm inclined to block WCC, as a sock used primarily or solely for internal projectspace discussions, and encourage this user to contribute under his original account. MastCell Talk 05:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A block such as that, though not entirely unheard of, is still quite uncommon. With that in mind, I would suggest that if you issue such a block it is likely to look vindictive, i.e. one of WMC supporters punishing the opposition.  I assume that isn't your intent, but it would be easy to percieve it that way.  So, if you really feel the issue should be pursued, I'd suggest you ask some other uninvolved admin (or perhaps a checkuser) to look into it, rather than taking decisive action yourself.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dragons flight. This person supposes I'm in league with William M. Connolley and refuses to withdraw the accusation.  If I can be accused of that, surely you can.  Durova  Charge! 16:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can be, and have been, accused of being in league with pretty much every allegedly nefarious force on Wikipedia over the year(s). I've been called a sockpuppet of Jpgordon and SlimVirgin, and Orangemarlin was named as my bad-hand sockpuppet. I'm still trying to figure out whether I qualify as part of the ID clique. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't particularly see why this sock should continue running around being disruptive, using this platform to attack WMC on unrelated matters, and pursuing an old grudge for which his main account is apparently unsuitable. This happens way too often at ArbCom, and no one ever bothers to do anything about it. This is either a bad-hand sock (in a best-case scenario) or a block-evading sock, used specifically to attack another editor in projectspace, and we should block the account without a second thought. That said, I'm not going to do anything administrative here, based on the above feedback, other than speak my piece. MastCell Talk 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why a checkuser case, alleging "bad-hand sock behaviour" can't be filed, or do checkusers not accept that sort of argument? I would also note that it might matter if any main account is inactive. It might be acceptable to retire one account, start up another account for a single purpose, then retire that account and return to editing with the other account. As long as the single purpose account is not too disruptive, and and long as the editing periods don't overlap in pages and time, then it should be OK. A bit like "anonymous" witnesses. I know some of the people who presented evidence in the C68-SV-FM case have said they felt they were putting themselves on the line by presenting evidence. Maybe we do need a way for people to present evidence anonymously, with safeguards like the arbitration committee being made aware of the identity of the account presenting evidence anonymously? People might say that evidence can be e-mailed to ArbCom, but that is different from presenting evidence online. If the evidence can be public, it should be, but there may sometimes be reasons for the person presenting the evidence to be anonymous. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There already is a mechanism for people to present evidence to ArbCom anonymously: arbcom-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. If the evidence needs to be public, a clerk or Arb can post it as a proxy. This account isn't hiding because they have important evidence and fear retribution; they're here for a pile-on grudge against an embattled user in a public forum. I have no idea who the main account is, so it would be fishing on my part to request a checkuser. If I were to guess? I think it's, the author of the National Review piece, based on the focus of his edits and the constant linking to his (own) op-ed pieces. But that's a guess. Given that Solomon is a readily identifiable real-life figure, I don't know that checkuser is the best way to handle it. I think the WCC account should be blocked without reference to whom the master account is, based on WCC's edits here. MastCell Talk 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "If the evidence needs to be public, a clerk or Arb can post it as a proxy." - it needs to be made much clearer that this is possible. Under the current system, I think many people are wary of presenting evidence, and that is bad. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Two quick notes: one, I'm not Lawrence Solomon. If a user I trust (and there aren't many, and none have shown themselves in this case) asks, I'll be glad to privately offer up who I am to them and them alone.  But the second point works  with the first - I don't trust this body to deal with proxy evidence or sending anything to the arbcom list.  I felt this was the best way, and apparently it was a poor choice.  I have nothing else to offer at this stage, and I'll be bowing out of this case since it's clear certain users would rather distract with drama instead of attack the issue at hand.  Sorry to be an inadvertent nuisance. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<--- Okay, enough of this, really folks. Nothing more than a sideshow. Evidence has been presented, complete with diffs and links, and one hopes Arbcom will examine it and weigh its relevance to the matter at hand. (That relevance can be significant or non-existent, but that will be up to Arbcom.) If anyone else has evidence, contradictory or supportive of WCC's, I urge them to post it soonest so that the case can progress. This big debate about exactly who WCC was in a previous incarnation is irrelevant, though. Focus on the evidence, and if it is believed to have been offered in bad faith, then refute it or demonstrate why it is bad faith. If anyone else had been inclined to really pursue matters against WMC, it would have been an evening's work to have produced pretty well the same list that WCC has posted. Risker (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this in substance, particularly the fact that the master account for WCC is really irrelevant. However, there's no reason that just because someone is at ArbCom, it should be open season on them for grudge-bearing socks. It happens all the time, and it's easy to be objective about it from our position, but when I experienced it firsthand I found it to be the most unpleasant aspect of an ArbCom proceeding that accounts-with-a-grudge can show up and say pretty much whatever they like, without regard to WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, under the guise of "evidence" and workshop proposals. MastCell Talk 17:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've brought up the recent rash of grudgesocks on the ArbCom RfC, and invite all non-grudgesocks to comment (:D) SirFozzie (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this sock has also voted at RFA: how do we know that wasn't a double vote? There's a problem in policy when we hamstring ourselves and an account like this runs amok in so many important discussions for so long.  For the record, I've got no problem with the basic notion of negative evidence going up against William M. Connolley (or indeed against anybody, myself included--I'm trying to get my name added to this case) so long as it's within the scope of the case and presented fairly.  It's the manner of WCC's actions that raises concerns.  Durova  Charge! 00:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If WCC = SEWilco, then this ArbCom decision is relevant: Per the consensus of myself, Ambi, and Extreme Unction, SEWilco is blocked from commenting, either directly or indirectly, on the actions of William M. Connolley. This is to be interpreted liberally. This restriction is to last for one year, or until we believe that SEWilco can distinguish what actions are appropriate in respects to other users. Ral315 (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So then is someone going to take this to CU and find out? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody, should, because it is actually irrelevant January 2006 + 1 year << July 2008, not only has that restriction lapsed completely, so has the arbitration committee ruling under which it was imposed. Speculation + irrelevancy is not a reason for checkuser.  GRBerry 02:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Grungy socks (in response to SirFozzies comments - not the header title)
I always shudder at the appearance of socks and the ilk at ArbComs (and RfA's and RfC's for that matter) since they tend to obscure the few bits of clear evidence - in cases where there is plenty of evidence there is no need, thus they rarely appear - that have been presented. That is to say, that those who appear to be inclined to the view that I hold do a disservice to the evidence that I present - as the focus shifts toward the identity and history of the socks, who rarely post anything of relevance as regards recent activity and usually simply indulge in a spot of editor bashing, and not toward the facts presented. I suppose that persons holding views contrary to mine are likewise frustrated at the noise and smoke generated by such posters from "their" side of the discussion. Naturally, it is the openness and wide ranging ambit of ArbCom (and RfA/RfC) that permits this plus the inclination of not curtailing language or tone in fear that a little bit of useful information may also be lost. Personally I wish they would all just fuck off back to the rock from under which they just crawled. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about the distraction part. People should be looking at the evidence presented by Inclusionist and GRBerry. Some of the blocks WMC has carried out do seem problematic. If Arbcom feel able to widen the scope to look at Giano's recent behaviour in the last few months, they should also feel able to widen the scope to look at WMC's recent admin actions (GRBerry and Inclusionist both point to several actions in April and May 2008), and Geogre's other blocking actions in 2008 (or, if you want to include the unblock of Giano, going all the way back to June 2007). Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

They're coming out of the woodwork..
Now a tl;dr section comparing WMC to RMS? I'm beginning to believe that ArbCom case pages (not the talk pages) should be semi-protected. SirFozzie (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've filed Requests for checkuser/Case/AnonymousGoodFaith in response.  MBisanz  talk 21:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the PM case and socks in meta-discussions - I've opened a thread at WP:SOCK, a policy which really needs to be updated to reflect the case. - Merzbow (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you like. I've already blocked indefinitely as a sock created for use in internal projectspace discussions, and worse, specifically to target and attack an individual user. I did leave the autoblock off, so maybe we'll see the master account. I've also removed the "evidence" posted by this sock as it was not evidence at all, but a lengthy and highly inappropriate diatribe. Any admin or editor may reverse these actions and I will not reinstate them, but I'm actually quite tired of routinely seeing ArbCom case pages degenerate in this manner while everyone sits by and twiddles their thumbs. Perhaps those who shuddered at the prospect of Orangemarlin being given an opportunity to defend himself could help out with these concrete examples of case-page disruption?  Struck as gratuitous and unconstructive. MastCell Talk 21:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Checkuser comes back as inconclusive. Oh well. Good block MastCell.  MBisanz  talk 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Evidence" by
Per this, it appears that WMC should be considered for desysopping because he believes in Global Warming... I have had a look, but cannot find the policy wording this falls under. I would ask LFOD but it is a very new account (less than a dozen edits, and all "yesterday") and likely hasn't had enough time to familiarise themselves with the minutiae of policy - devoting their time to winkling out WMC's policy (sorry, which policy, again?) violations and how to get to RfAr/Georgre-WMC first time... plus a little template vandalism.

As "evidence" it is so obviously biased and lacking in any basis of procedure that it is even possible to believe that it is a strawman designed to make WMC look good - except that it is indeed the type of diatribe that opponents of global warming theories indulge in when their facts are found to be even more unsustainable than those that they are criticising. I realise that the ArbCom are unlikely to weigh the content too deeply, but I felt that it required commenting upon by someone who has provided evidence that might be considered as non supportive of WMC. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the evidence? LFOD provided examples of blanket reverts based solely on WMC's position on the matter.  It is an ownership issue, an NPOV issue, and his position on the site unfortunately gives credence to those things sticking, not to mention the cabalistic teamwork often employed. The evidence could have done without the "radical" editorializing, but the evidence stands on its own and LFOD should present more examples. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 13:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WMC simply reverts nonsense/propaganda, he even takes the time to explain why the previous edit was wrong in the edit summary. The type of edits he is reverting would in case of other articles be considered as vandalism. E.g. saying that there is no consensus about AGW is as nonsensical as saying that Obama is a Muslim. An editor who repeatedly tries to edit in a text saying that obama is a Muslim in the Obama article would eventually be accused of vandalism. It wouldn't be an issue if some Admin active on that page would repeatedly revert such edits. Count Iblis (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "...cabalistic teamwork..."?' That would be the other side in a content dispute, would it not? LFOD is providing evidence of a content dispute on a few articles, and bases their call for the desysopping of WMC upon the opinion that WMC holds that informs his editing of the articles - whereas I pointed out WMC's violation of the tenets most recently expressed in a recent ArbCom of admins reacting to criticism of themselves by using the sysop bit inappropriately. Would you please provide detail in how WMC editing an article to a specific POV is abuse of the admin tools, or otherwise take your own bias' and conflict of interest (and that of LFOD) away from this ArbCom; it is getting in the way of reviewing WMC's actions as an administrator. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)