User talk:Abd/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Blocked

With this edit, you have clearly (again) broken your editing restriction which bars you from commenting on any dispute in which you are not an originating party, on any page. You may of course feel that you have a long-standing interest in GoRight's conflicts, but that doesn't make you an "originating party" of the current discussion about his block. Also, the mere fact that yesterday you disagreed with a prior decision not to allow you to comment on this dispute, thus opening a "side dispute" in which you indeed were an "originating party", doesn't magically allow you to rejoin the original dispute, GoRight's block issue, as you did there. Otherwise the whole restriction would be moot, because you would have a magical key enabling you to force your way into any dispute at all.

Since together with yesterday's incident this is already a repeat offense, and since with your whole pattern of aggressive behaviour and overly wordy rambling postings you have continued exactly the disruptive pattern that led to your previous ban, I am blocking you for one week in accordance with the Arbcom ruling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: More thoughts related to this block are here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Abd (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please allow me to edit RfAr pages to respond to current discussion there of this block or other pages where I am specifically discussed by others. I will follow any restrictions set by a neutral unblocking administrator, at his or her sole discretion, without contention, pending resolution by the community or ArbComm, and hereby consent to a reblock if determined by any admin who has unblocked me (neutral or not, could be Future Perfect). Thanks.

Decline reason:

I'm going to decline to unblock, at this time. Given that the drama of the moment stems entirely from the interactions between you and other parties who are already participating at the RFAr page, it seems unwise to fuel the fire. I invite you to post a statement of some sort on this page, under the heading "Statement in re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley", and I or another editor will ensure that it is entered into the record. I will also note this fact at the clarification request. You are, as with other Arbitration activity, free to submit information or statements via e-mail in the usual way. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thanks for considering it Ultraexactzz. What I proposed was merely more efficient and direct, since the result would be the same and you could have made any restriction you chose, such as "no posting to anything but your Talk page, personal user space, and Arbitration Committee pages (where clerks make appropriateness decisions," but.... it's little skin off my teeth, if any. --Abd (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement in re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley

I'm puzzled that I wasn't unblocked on an agreed voluntary tight restriction to allow me to post directly to the RfAr, pending resolution. However, not my call. If this section of my Talk is transcluded to the RfAr/Clarification page, I'd be able to add diffs and other responses as needed.

I had thought we were going to be done here, the matter raised in this request had been resolved, in a manner favorable to me.

Most important point here: The edit for which Future Perfect blocked me included repetition of a criticism of his behavior specifically abuse of tools, with respect to another editor (not merely me), and, as well, the criticized action involved me, in any further process over this I would clearly be a proper party. Therefore he should not have blocked me, according to recusal policy, but should have requested assistance as I've seen many admins do when there was far less clarity about the issue. To my original response:

There was no rush of edits pushing boundaries, no emergency. Setting aside the first edit to an RfAr re Climate Change, where I thought I'd be able to comment because of prior involvement, but sentiment was against that, there are three claims of sanction violation leading to my present block, but I will note that most or all of this would not have occurred or would have been handled easily and nondisruptively if a set of editors who seem to be determined to push for my complete ban were enjoined to avoid needless contact with or involvement with me. This includes editors who have been sanctioned in the past, and some who possibly should have been, but I have never before pushed for sanctions; rather, I simply raised certain issues for the community or ArbComm to decide.

Nevertheless, the current motion re William M. Connolley I support as likely to reduce disruption, but he is not the only editor who might be covered, and if he is the only one mentioned, the problem will not be resolved.

• !vote in AfD, 10 January. As my restriction allowed me to !vote in polls, I was surprised to see WMC take me to an RfAr/Clarification and Arbitration Enforcement over this. The AE report was resolved by Tznkai with his finding that an AfD was a "poll," and that there had been no violation of a sanction, and there is no indication from any arbitrator otherwise. The RfAr/Clarification initially included, in addition to the filing by WMC, negative comment by Mathsci, Enric Naval, and a dark prediction by JzG. The Arbitration Enforcement report included negative comment by, besides WMC, Enric Naval and Mathsci. All four, WMC, JzG, Enric Naval, and Mathsci, have made other gratuitous and provocative comments about me recently. All have been parties in Arbitration cases with me or mentioned in findings and remedies. I mention these because an agenda is obvious: watch every move of Abd and find any possible violation to assert, no matter how remote, provoke him by commenting about him, and raise a fuss about it. If needed, evidence could be compiled, but it's pretty easy to see. This should be discouraged! Just how much disruption would there have been from my "violations" if there hadn't been a crowd milling around to "enforce" my sanctions?

• My vote in a poll at AN reviewing block of GoRight, 18 January. Primary justification of edit: a poll was under way. Complicated situation, bottom line is that GoRight has been the target of harassment for almost two years, and my initial contact with WMC and other editors involved in Global Warming issues was over an attempt to sanction GoRight; GoRight had made mistakes, but the behavior of the editors and administrators who were seeking his restriction was worse, and that was the clear sense of the neutral editors commenting in RfC/GoRight, apparently inspired by the evidence I presented then. I had two reasons for allowing myself to comment in this poll at AN. First was that I was mentioned in a number of places in the discussions, which shows involvement, and I have strong long-term interest. I'm not neutral, I'm not an outside intervenor, meddling in something none of my business. I have substantial knowledge of the history, and have documented much of it at various times, initially as a neutral editor (My view about global warming is contrary to GoRight's, but my major interest is in project neutrality, which is damaged when one side is preferentially sanctioned, as had happened for years in the global warming area, and which is still happening there and elsewhere). Secondly, there was a poll being taken. If not, it certainly looked like one! (The sequence is described in the third edit described below.) Future Perfect removed my edit as a restriction violation and warned me. I disagreed, strongly, but I made no more edits there or in any place like that. However, Future Perfect revert warred over the removal, which indicates a deep misunderstanding on the part of Future Perfect as to edits under ban, for even had there been a violation, insistence on removal would not be appropriate at AN, rather, AE would be the remedy (or a block, perhaps). He threatened to block ATren if Atren reverted him again, and that was completely beyond the pale, a threatened use of tools while involved in a dispute. Removal of edits made in violation of ban is not, per se, an emergency of any kind, and if Atren actually interfered with ban enforcement by Future Perfect, it would not justify a block of Atren by Future Perfect, the latter would be obligated to ask for assistance. The edit itself was not disruptive, was appropriate for the discussion, and was relatively brief. However, efforts immediately began to attempt to cover up the "poll" character of that discussion. Tony Sidaway removed bolding from all comments. The level of wikilawyering in order to justify blocking me is astonishing.

• Comment on discussion of me at Talk:GoRightdiff. Discussion of my edit at AN appeared in various places. My understanding has been that if I'm the topic of a discussion, I'm an "originating party," though the Committee has never made the meaning of that clear. So I made a comment, documenting the history of this "poll" silliness. The edit was on a user Talk page where it was welcome.

• Two !votes in apparent polls and one comment in a discussion of me and my action. The comment on GoRight was relatively long, but GoRight permits that, and I'm not enjoined against excessive verbiage, though I've certainly been advised against it. Nobody was obligated to read my comment there. However, it does cover the history of the "poll" at AN. From what had been happening so far, I understood I could respond when I was discussed, and especially if my behavior was mischaracterized. Whether it's wise to respond or not may be another issue, but I haven't understood that I was under a sanction prohibiting it. I'm under an MYOB sanction, not something other than that, and I understand that the committee wanted to allow me to comment in polls because it did not want to prevent my participation in community decisions. If the Committee wishes to tighten the restrictions, my policy is to respect Committee decisions, insofar as I understand them. It helps when they are clear!

• Future Perfect at Sunrise misunderstands both recusal policy and my position regarding it. On my Talk page (where he could ignore it) I pointed out to him that his threat to block Atren was a violation of policy, and he misunderstood this as a claim that he could not block me. However, given the disagreement that had arisen, I then advised him not to block me, or at least to be careful. He hasn't been. He assumed that my edit to User talk:GoRight was an uninvolved intervention in GoRight's current block, which, even if I were not involved, wasn't the case, I was commenting on discussion of me and my action. Given that, his block of me has now become that of an administrator involved in a dispute with the editor blocked, and notice of this by the committee may be appropriate.

• The claim that an editor could make it impossible to block him or her by repeatedly claiming involvement is preposterous. It's also moot. I have no history of running disruptive process over a block by an involved admin. I have, once, told an admin that blocking me would not be a good idea because of our history. That was WMC. He blocked me twice. First time, I did nothing at all. Second time, I did nothing at all as well. WMC lost his admin bit over it. I had given sound advice.

continued discussion of Future Perfect's argument against recusal policy

This argument has been presented before to ArbComm and has been rejected. If I tried that, I'd be history quickly, as would anyone. But that has not been my approach. I was indef blocked by Iridescent and later praised the manner in which she handled it. It was only when WMC continued to insist that he had the right to unilaterally maintain a ban, that he should be the sole arbiter of my future editing, based on his personal judgment, that I took the matter of the ban, not his block, to ArbComm, and he lost his bit not because I demanded it be removed, but because he actually blocked me during the case.

• Future Perfect has vigorously argued here against recusal policy.

extended discussion

He's not the first, but perhaps the Committee should start to take notice that there are administrators who have openly defied the policy, or who clearly don't understand it. These are serious and long-term issues which will continue to cause disruption if not addressed. My block is relatively harmless in itself, but I do argue that it was not only an error, but it was also an error of an involved administrator, and someone less involved would be more likely to make sober decisions. AE was open to Future Perfect. He did not use it. There was no emergency.

• Skinwalker has commented on my edit to Oppenheimer-Phillips process claiming that it is a violation of my topic ban.

Why it is not a violation at all, and response to add'l Enric Naval evidence

I became knowledgeable about this topic and cooperated with ScienceApologist in cleaning up that article, as can be seen from History. There is no connection with Cold fusion, there is no hint of it in either article. ScienceApologist applied for special permission from ArbComm to help with O-P process at a point where he was under or still being very careful about a fringe science topic ban. I'm sure he didn't say it was about cold fusion! My edit was a minor change, I simply noticed an IP edit and removed what became a redundant wikilink. I do not know Skinwalker, but really wonder why the editor was exercised to bring this here. Absolutely, I had not the slightest hint of possibility that anyone would even notice that edit, much less assert it as a ban violation. --Abd (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I see that Enric Naval has adduced some additional evidence. I had forgotten completely about those papers as proposing O-P process as an explanation for cold fusion. The hypothesis did not gain support, it isn't what I think of when considering the proposed theories, and I don't think of O-P process, and I had no motive with respect to O-P process except to make the article explain O-P process clearly, which, with ScienceApologist's cooperation, was done with apparent complete consensus. The link to the cold fusion article and that mention was intended to make some of the science clear to Enric Naval by relating Coulomb barrier to something he was familiar with. The goal was the opposite of controversy, and nothing that I did there should have been controversial. As to the edit the other day, all I had on my mind was an extra wikilink, bad style. There was no agenda with respect to cold fusion; had there been one, I'd have recognized the problem and would have avoided the edit! Had I intended to draw the O-P process article into the cold fusion controversy, I'd have attempted to link to cold fusion in the article, perhaps citing one of those papers. But I didn't. Again, as seems to be common, Enric Naval brings in off-wiki evidence. Yes, the O-P process shows that certain nuclear behavior isn't what we would expect from a simplistic model of the deuteron, and that is useful in explaining, -- perhaps -- the Takashashi Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, which was transiently in the article (without any connection to O-P process because there is no reliable source making the connection, my writing off-wiki was original), but any known phenomenon describing nuclear behavior can be useful in explaining aspects of proposed theories, which doesn't make the known phenomenon into a "cold fusion" topic unless some connection is made in the article and the edit bears on the relationship. The scope of my topic ban hasn't been clarified, but it is not my intention to push any edges. It's this simple: Because I'd edited the article, it was on my watchlist, and I saw an IP edit. If the IP editor had made a change of substance, RCPers would very not likely understand enough to catch it. So I looked at the change and it was the addition of a wikilink. That made two wikilinks for the same topic next to each other. So I removed the second one. It's a reflex, if one has become a Wikipedia editor. Apparently I did. Should I have taken O-P process off my watchlist? Why? I'd have to recognize that there was a controversy! As far as I can see, all that is happening here is that there is a concerted and sustained effort to discover reasons to assert ban violations. There are other actions asserted here which can be asserted to show a certain attitude, and that can reasonably be considered a problem, most notably the edit I was blocked for, where I was, indeed, pointing out offensive behavior on the part of other editors, though only in relation to me, and I could have put that edit in this RfAr discussion and it would obviously have been allowed. Is a comment allowed in one discussion but not another? Does my status as an originating party depend on which page my comment is on, or does it depend on the substance of the issue and my involvement? But this edit wasn't, in any way, part of that. It was just what it appeared to be. A minor correction, made because noticed and without any thought that it might possibly be a violation, nor would anyone not quite involved have noticed it at all. It's obviously something dredged up to toss on a pile to make it look like I'm repeatedly disregarding sanctions, when, every time I look at Wikipedia, I see stuff going on that I'd normally be tempted to comment upon, and I don't. Because of the sanction. There was a whole section on AN with my name in the title, and I didn't comment there, though I could reasonably have asserted that it was permitted under the "originating party" allowance. Why not? Because the issue of commenting on AN over the general issue had been raised, and was before ArbComm, so it would add controversy and legitimately appear to be continuing contention without necessity. --Abd (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• The edit to Oppenheimer-Phillips process was clearly harmless, removing a redundant wikilink, made without any hint of suspicion that it would be brought here. Same as the original AfD edit flap.

• Ah! Now I get it. I had forgotten that cold fusion was mentioned on the Talk page. The first was as explanation of Coulomb barrier for Enric Naval, who seemed to be struggling with some concepts, and I was relating it to something I knew he knew. The other place was in productive discussion with ScienceApologist. Had I been writing this now, I'd not have mentioned it, because of the ban, but that was then. And that discussion was related to specific language in the article, and we came to consensus on that, there is no substance to the claim of ban violation.

• Is a ban discussion a poll? I was warned that an AfD !vote was a violation of my ban. I stopped, and did not edit an XfD again until it was clear that XfD process includes polling. Note that an XfD is also a "discussion," and raw !votes, without evidence or argument, are deprecated. So outside of certain narrow situations, all polls are also discussions. But not all discussions are polls, that's clear. If, in a discussion, someone sets up !voting, and people start following the format of !voting, if this is not polling, how am I supposed to know it? The question, "is a discussion a poll," is a red herring, because it depends on whether polling is done! No polling, no poll. How do we know if polling is being done? There would be specific ways we would know. But the basic way is that !votes are suggested; comments are mostly categorized into "sides," and it is organized so that one can quickly estimate numbers on each side, typically with a bolded initial !vote followed by comment. There was not actually a poll on a ban. There was, instead, a simpler poll to support or oppose a block, !votes were Support and Oppose. It's obvious there was a poll. And there was discussion. I attempted to !vote in the poll, it was removed in spite of my explicit permission, but I did not engage in discussion as such, beyond my comment with my !vote. Now, one might try to find some technical defect, some way to make it not a poll, and that was attempted. The bold comments were reduced to plaintext after I was warned. It's clear what this is, wikilawyering to fabricate a ban violation out of something that was not intended that way, nor was it careless. If it wasn't a poll, it sure looked like it, and I did not anticipate that my comment would be removed, nor that I'd be charged with ban violation. Tznkai has decided that it was a violation -- the basis for this is unclear to me -- but did he consider intention? In retrospect, the Committee or the community can decide that ban discussions are not polls even if people are !voting. But then why are AfD discussions polls? The same principles apply! Even if it was a poll, because of the appearance, I deserve a warning before being blocked, and then only be blocked for continued violation. I did not defy any administrator attempting to gently enforce the ban, by ignoring the warning. I stopped, even though I disagreed.

• Was there continued violation? Future Perfect claims that I was repeatedly violating the sanction. However, I did not repeat the behavior that I was warned about, I didn't continue to post at AN (even though there is another discussion there that has my name in the section header, it might be noted, yet I was not notified and only found it later), and it has yet to be established that, if repeated, that action would be a violation. Future Perfect, however, asserted a different kind of violation as the cause for his block, "commenting on any dispute in which you are not an originating party." (By the way, if it were a block for sanction violation, it would normally start with 24 hours and be escalated "up to a week" if problems repeat, if shorter blocks were ineffective. The one-week block to start is a sign of Future Perfect's overreaction, a sign of involvement.)
• What is the meaning of originating party, in the sanction? I have assumed that it meant "an original party," i.e., a natural participant in a dispute, as distinct from someone "meddling," and the title of the ban proposal in the RfAr was MYOB, for Mind Your Own Business. Hence my understanding that if I was involved, I could comment, it would indeed be my Own Business. I seriously question that it was ArbComm's intention to prohibit me from comment on pages if charges are levelled against me there or if my behavior becomes an issue, even if I'm not a formal named party at the outset.
• If I am being discussed, does this make me an "originating party?" I've understood the spirit of the ban to revolve around an injunction to Mind My Own Business. So really the question is whether a discussion is my business or not. The discussion on User talk:GoRight, where I commented and was blocked for it, was about me and my vote in the poll or !poll. (Apparently I may !vote in polls, but not in !polls?) That makes it my business. On a number of other pages, such as User talk:Tznkai, I was discussed and I did then comment, and I was not then warned for ban violation as a result. Why was this one considered an offense?
• As the claim of a ban violation from my edit to Oppenheimer-Phillips process shows, without protection, my editing will be followed closely, continually scrutinized for any edit that might be wikilawyered into a violation.
• If this behavior is not discouraged by the committee, if it allows this disruptive process to arise at the whim of any of a set of editors who have repeatedly engaged in it, there is no point to my being allowed to edit Wikipedia at all, it will indeed create continual distraction. However, if the bullying is not addressed, it will have been encouraged, and the problem will continue to grow. I am just one editor, I'm not important. Those harassing me have harassed many before. This has been going on a long time, and it's what I was attempting to address before being banned. Cf. the current situation of GoRight, who was clearly indef blocked for attempting to intervene against the harassment of User:Pcarbonn and others. --Abd (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for help in the past

		The Original Barnstar
		Hey Abd After seeing all the problems you are dealing with I would like to thank you for your help in the past. Over a year ago when I started at Wikipedia I found your advice very helpful in 1) learning how to use Wikipedia as a new editor ( man there are a lot of rule / policies ) and 2) giving me some history on the controversy I was involved in. Many thanks. I believe many of your contributions are helpful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it's gratifying to have helped editors, whether I'm allowed to continue or not. I often intervened in controversies, involved or not, and was frequently successful in resolving certain disputes, or in making clear who was actually disrupting and who was not. It can at first look quite different from the reality. Wikipedia appeals to certain instincts in us, and the idea is brilliant, once understood. But the implementation was missing certain elements that would have allowed Wikipedia to function on a large scale without becoming corrupted by certain classic phenomena. It's not the people, it's the structure, (or defects in the structure, including missing but necessary elements) which can, too often, bring out the worst in people, as part of the process of burning them out.

Good luck, my email will remain open, I assume, or I'm user Abd on meta and on Wikipedia Review, and if you write me now, I'd have a way to contact you even if my email access is removed, which is not impossible. --Abd (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Essay

Hello, Abd. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Essay_Categorization_and/or_Classification#Getting_this_project_going.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 04:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Abd-William M. Connolley

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification:

1) Abd and William M. Connolley prohibited from interacting Abd (talk · contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) 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.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Offering you the same as I have WMC

See this discussion for details.

ban remainder reminder

Regarding [this comment in an AN discussion, I looked and I couldn't find that you were an originating party on that particular dispute. I remind you that commenting in a dispute where you are not an originating party is a violation of your ban. I suggest that you re-read Tznkai's statement in the motion and also this comment where it is clarified to you that AN discussions are not polls and that your ban covers them. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Enric, that my comment there was distressing to you. Of course I wasn't an originating party. The "originating party" exception to the sanction and the "poll" exception are completely independent, as far as I can see. If not, it certainly was not and has not been made clear.

I will call your attention to a comment that was cited in the parallel AE request filed with the RfAr/Clarification you link to. This was a comment from an arbitrator on the MYOB proposal.[1]

• Support - To answer Carch, no it isn't part of policy. I'd say he could vote at "comment/support/oppose" sections, and for the sake of simplicity and unambiguity, I'd leave 3O off limits for the time being. Yeah I think this one is good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It could hardly be more explicit. Tznkai has a right to his opinion, but I dispute it; I did not argue with it, though, because that would be useless dispute. If he has an issue with this particular !vote, he can raise it with me and I'll give his views due consideration.

My comment in the AN poll was very brief and aligned, it seems, with the consensus. It was not contentious or tendentious. Your objection to it is already more disruptive than it could possibly have been. What's your concern, Ernic, what is your purpose in this? You've made a series of comments that seem to have tried to wikilawyer this or that action of mine into a ban violation, such as my comment in an AfD (very much permitted) that prompted the RfAr/Clarification and the parallel AE request. ArbComm has, as a result, passed a motion of non-interaction between two of the parties of the arbitration. Perhaps a third party should also be enjoined. What do you think? --Abd (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This time I have only warned you, among other things because the edit was stale and no drama came out of it. Next time you push the limits of your ban I'll just report to WP:AE, and let others deal with it. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Smart. The first part, anyway. Not sure about the second, but suit yourself. Are you saying that if I want to see you before ArbComm, all I have to is make some marginal edit? That would be easy. I haven't been "pushing the limits," if I wanted to do that you'd see a lot more. A lot more. I've made comments in polls as permitted. The very first edit that was complained about was more marginal, but it was before ArbComm and I didn't think they would mind. I'm now interpreting the ban more strictly. Believe me. But, do realize, I'm allowed to file an RfAr as an "originating party." I'm sure that if ArbComm doesn't like it they can and will deal with it. They da boss.

By the way, see the title you gave this section. It's "reminder," not "remainder." Thought you'd like to know, you might have to use the word in an article some day. --Abd (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo :)

Anyways, if you are planning to comment in more disputes at AN where there are "oppose" and "support" sections (what you call a poll), you should first make a request for clarification at WP:RFAR to make sure that you can actually edit them. Until Arbcom says that it's ok, my interpretation is going to be that you are not allowed to comment at those AN disputes where you are not an originating party, regardless of the format. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

An RfAr/Clarification will cause far more time to be wasted than is possible from my poll comments, unless editors like you continue to make a huge fuss about them. You might notice that the last request resulted in a blanket interaction ban for the editor who filed it. (That ban was symmetrical, but I hadn't been gratuitously interacting with that other editor, and certainly mentions of his name by me, if there were any at all, were not the cause of the multiple filings. And the ban is fine with me.) I have no intention of wasting ArbComm's time with more frivolous and unnecessary requests, but, certainly, if you or others continue to insist upon your interpretation, and continue to make a fuss about it, it will become necessary.

I should write an essay: WP:ELEPHANT. Don't waste energy to avoid waste of energy, don't run elephant exorcism ceremonies until you've actually got elephant droppings in your living room or see an elephant trying to break the door down. So to speak. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already told you that I will file a AE request if I see you again commenting at AN discussions and saying that it's ok because of being a poll. You are, of course, free to start any arbitration request on me or on problems in your ban. And, of course, I would rather have you avoiding AN and going to improve some article instead, but that's something that you have to do by yourself. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Enric, you've made your point, repetitively. Now, go do something actually useful yourself, and stay off my Talk page, it's purely disruptive, wasting not only your time but mine and that of the many editors who watch my Talk page. While I will still read what you post here, I'll revert it without comment unless you manage to actually say something useful, and if you continue with the useless, I'll file a complaint about harassment myself. Meanwhile, I've made article edits today and have more to make when I find time and am not distracted by this bullshit. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to comment but this does seem like beating a dead horse :-) Maybe we should all get back to writing an encyclopedia? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What a concept! --Abd (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Email to me has been bouncing or is lost

Some time last Thursday, my domain host had a RAID failure, they claim, and they have been unable to repair it as yet. I have changed my Wikipedia email address to a new location, and any messages sent to me on or after Thursday should be, at present, assumed lost. --Abd (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of International Amateur Radio Union/Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. MuffledThud (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Twenty seconds. Wow! I immediately used Twinkle to place a speedy deletion tag, once I saw that the page was actually created, and Twinkle refused to save it, because you had already added a tag. Apparently, WP:SUBPAGE is incorrect, and it was important to a current discussion that I verify this. The software allows mainspace subpages. If SUBPAGE had been correct, there would have been no page created and no need for your tagging, but obviously you didn't sweat over it! Thanks for watching the project so closely, people like you are very important. --Abd (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, by the way. What I created wasn't a subpage, but a page with a slash in the name. Actually different. I'd claim there is a bug in the software, but if you don't want subpages in mainspace, it's a feature (it allows the use of ordinary slashes in article names, but ... take a look at Talk:OS/2, at the top it has a link to the supposed parent page, Talk:OS. Oops! No way around that, apparently, because Talk space does allow subpages, and the Talk page processing assumes that the slash indicates a subpage. Not a Huge Problem, but .... --Abd (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Other Red Cross Merges...

Since you did the Afghanistan Red Crescent merger, could you take a look at the other proposed mergers that I did for the Red Cross national organizations. One is at Lao Red Cross and the other at Red Cross Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Second leads to the question of whether it is a Red Cross or a Red Crescent. I think it is a Red Cross http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JR65 .

If there is an article with the official name and another with some short-hand for it, and there is little content in the unofficial name, it's pretty simple and you could go ahead. What's more of a problem is if there is different sourced content, that will require more work. As to Red Cross and Red Crescent, if they are the same organization, same social structure, then presumably it has a predominant name, and the other name would be a redirect. I haven't looked, but we might be lucky and there is an organization, incorporated in Bosnia Herzegovina, being something like the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society of Bosnia and Herzeogovina. But if one article (say Red Cross) is predominant and has most of the content, then it should be okay to use that article as the target, and put a prominent note at the time describing the multiple names. Whatever, it shouldn't be that important, as long as the result is clear and not prejudicial. I'd look at what the ICRC or the union society calls it. I'll look at what you did if I have time, later. Might. Might not. Thanks. -Abd (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just want to congratulate you

Kudos on the way you are "fighting the good fight" over the AfD of the ham orgs. It really looks like its a hams versus muggles fight. If the Muggles win and the articles do get destroyed, is there a way to keep "backups" of their content so that we don't irrevocably lose any information? Roger (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is an ambiguity in WP:ORG that I'm trying to fix so that we don't get muggles vs hams. However, if my position is not sustained at WP:RSN and WP:ORG, then the most likely thing is that the separate articles get merged back to a List article. No content will be lost. If an article is actually deleted, a copy can be requested from an admin. Probably, though, with some attention, Merge will be the ultimate outcome of the AfDs, which simply means that their content is replaced with a redirect tag, it is still all there in History, easy to find. (Go to the old article, you will be redirected to the target, but at the top, there will be a "redirected from" notice. Follow that, it will take you to the redirect. Then use the History tab to access history; normally the latest version before the redirect would be what you'd want.)

I oppose deletion/merge, though, because ultimately it is more work for everyone, and it is cleaner. Simple stubs should be used, and they do meet at least a liberal interpretation of notability requirements, which is why there is so much controversy at the AfDs. Editors interested in the field read WP:CLUB one way and deletionists, or others simply insisting on a particular reading of WP:RS and WP:ORG, read it another. What I'm trying to document is Actual Practice, and unfortunately a lot of editors don't like Actual Practice, or they only think of actual practice in unnoticed AfD process, where they, perhaps, live most of the time.

By all means, comment in the AfDs or at the policy page or the noticeboard, but do try to understand the guidelines first, and keep it civil. Much of the argument on both sides is beside the point. It gets really arcane sometimes. And please don't make it a muggles vs hams dispute. It really isn't. It's just two sets of common understandings colliding. Thanks for your support. --Abd (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

Why are you WP:HOUNDing me? You have followed me to at least 10 different articles where you have reverted perfectly valid edits as "inappropriate", reverted tags on multiple articles (and then contradicted my judgment, offering to "personally allow" the tags), replaced images in tens of inappropriate categories, etc. and generally worked to undo hours of my time. Without saying a word to me no less. Please stop. -- samj _in^out 14:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black. I'm not hounding you. You aren't hounding me, Sam, but you are hounding User:LirazSiri. Stop yourself. Slow down. Address issues one at a time. And don't make it personal, it's not. Or it shouldn't be!

I encourage you to read WP:HOUND. You could be blocked if you continue. I'm not templating you, but keep it up and I will. Calm down and get advice from experienced editors who aren't involved.

On the substance, I saw that SJ was harassing LirazSiri and appears to be promoting an old agenda. Yes, I looked at his contributions, and it's a mess. I did not mass-revert, just in something like three cases (one of which involves a series of images), which he has now put up for deletion). SJ has edit-warred to promote this agenda, some of it was with LirazSiri, who is possibly a COI editor naive about how to respond, thus SJ can be seen as trolling to goad LS into a response that will get him blocked.

Not all of what I reverted may have been inappropriate. That's what happens when you mix in something that might be legitimate with garbage. The removal of the tags was because putting up dispute tags and the like without specifying the problem in article Talk is disruptive. But I offered to "allow" the tags if SJ would justify them in Talk. The tags say to refer to Talk. That's because an editor is supposed to begin a discussion in Talk before putting up the tags, so that others can know what the problem is. There was no current discussion, and SJ seems to have been upset about the article TurnKey Linux Virtual Appliance Library being restored after DRV. And seems to take any criticism personally.

As to "hours of work," my edits could be reverted in a flash, by neutral editors. They are single edits, reverted with a button push, probably take about a minute to undo all of them. SJ seems to use many edits to accomplish one, making it more cumbersome to undo, unless I were to use Rollback, which is only for vandalism. I was tempted, because this was close to vandalism, and SJ has been using HotCat. But it was almost as easy to use version reversion, and wouldn't raise controversy.

I emailed LS to encourage him to calm down and also take this one step at a time. Enric Naval kindly stepped in to advise LirazSiri as well. (Enric, have you been following my contributions? Naughty, naughty! :-) But in this case, at least, your intervention may be positive. Thanks.) And if not for the notice above, that might have been it. I suspect, now, that this isn't over.

Thanks Abd (& Enric) your involvement and calm, patient guidance is once again appreciated. Unfortunately I've let Sam get under my skin. Something about ignoring Wikipedia editing policies (e.g., edit warring) while cynically citing me for violating them, dismissing my edits as vandalism, calling me names and making public threats on Twitter. It just rubs me the wrong way. Oh and the abuse of HotCat doesn't help. Maybe I just caught him on a bad day. Anyhow I've offered him an olive branch. Hope to put all of this drama aside and discuss our differences peacefully. LirazSiri (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd sent you email. Did you receive it? In any case, without coming to any conclusion or making accusations about any particular editor, Wikipedia has many obsessive and highly temperamental editors, or sometimes just plain mental. If you let them upset you, well, you'll be upset! And when you are upset, then you do what they do, upset the apple cart, break the china, raise a ruckus, and the gendarmerie notice and toss you out.... and maybe they notice the other editor and maybe they don't. It's what they see first! I'm a parent. I'm singularly unimpressed when one of my children says, "But she did it first!" The one that acted out, and I saw it, gets sent to her room. Over time, it averages out....

Do not edit the article unless it is totally noncontroversial. Suggest changes in Talk, discuss them. Enric is generally reasonable, for example, I'm pretty sure he'll help you, as will I. And there will be others. Ask for help if you see something that needs to be done where there might be controversy, and stop immediately if you run into controversy. Even if you think the obstruction is total idiocy. Sometimes it may be, or sometimes you might be overlooking something that needs to be considered. --Abd (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice I think I'll take it. Every time I'm about to get fed up by all the drama and crazy antics of some of the people I run across on Wikipedia you come along and restore (some of) my faith in the community. And BTW no, I haven't read that email you sent me yet. I only access my email from my home computer for security reasons and I'm currently on a weekend vacation. Cheers! LirazSiri (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Shabbat Shalom. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement Request

I have requested that your editing restrictions be enforced. -- samj _in^out 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have requested, Sam, that you stay off my Talk page. This includes normally required notices; with any such filing, you may state with it that I have requested your absence from my Talk, and another editor may provide notice for me if they think the filing has any merit or there is other value to notifying me (it was unnecessary here). If you personally post here, absent permission (you may request permission by email), I will request that you be sanctioned for harassment. I am planning on filing an RfAr/Clarification, as I previously stated. That sanction has caused a lot of trouble because of unclarity as to specific application, and bans should be very specific, since they are theoretically designed to avoid disruption. All previous requests have either resulted in no approved sanction or in a clarification that narrowed the application, in spite of multiple requests that attempted to wikilawyer allowed edits into violations. We'll see what ArbComm comes up with on this one. I will leave this notice in place for a time. Please do not add to it. --Abd (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Smaller majorities

Do you remember the source you found supporting this text before it was reverted? Please respond at User talk:Objectivist. 99.191.75.124 (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Mmmm... I'm currently prohibited from any edits relating to Cold fusion, on-wiki. You could email me through the Wikipedia interface, or private message Abd at Wikipedia Review (you would need to register), or it's not hard to find my email address. I'll say this about that edit, though, hoping this is not too much.

• I was not responsible for that text. JzG is correct, technically. The text removed was OR, not supported by the source cited, and was actually misleading. (And his next edit was even more proper.) The reality is another story; and, yes, I have reliable sources enabling description of the reality neutrally. Text doing that was also reverted many times, both before I became involved and after. --Abd (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that you have sources supporting the smaller majority, but you have been prohibited from saying what they are? Can you please put them on Wikisource, e.g., here? 99.191.75.124 (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that "smaller majority" is misleading. Both panels were (probably) unanimous as to final result. How do you get "smaller" than unanimous and still be unanimous? That's been overlooked, because the nature of the final result has generally been dismissed in favor of assumptions about what it means, and it is that meaning that shifted. Which largely involves OR if presented as a conclusion. Please don't tempt me to say more here. I will look at the possibility of contributing something to wikisource. --Abd (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me to mention that some of the people posting to the Cold Fusion discussion claim that WikiSource is an unreliable source.... I tend to disagree, knowing something about what it can take to get something posted there. And here's one thing that should be more widely available than the place where it currently exists (uniquely?): http://www.ncas.org/erab/contents.htm --the full 1989 DOE report. V (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course Wikisource is an unreliable source, in itself. However, it can be used for convenience copies of reliable sources otherwise not easily available. The source cited should not be "Wikisource." Cite the original publisher. Wikisource is just a repository of copies. I won't comment on the specific document, it would approach my ban too closely. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to any neutral admin enforcing MYOB sanction over current incident.

I recognize that there is a debatable issue, at least, particularly for those without knowledge of the history, over my recent work with TurnKey Linux and thus involving SamJohnston and LirazSiri. My position is that I am indeed an "originating party," within the intention of my sanction, and will be requesting clarification on this from ArbComm. Any neutral admin, however, being inclined to otherwise block me, may temporarily clarify the sanction, being specific about behavior of mine which must stop, warning me here, and I will stop, pending clarification by ArbComm.

I did not wait to gain specific permission from ArbComm on this situation, which was rapidly escalating due to actions by the editors involved, because of the likelihood of damage if I did not act immediately. Very likely, due to errors by LirazSiri, a naive COI/SPA, SamJohnston would have been confirmed and aided in his harassment of that editor, through a block, when the real disruption (which is not merely a content dispute, though it involves content disputes -- not "vandalism" as repeatedly claimed) was coming from the other editor. My initial goal in responding to the AN/I report was simply to point out that both editors should "chill." I then, researching the evidence to present, I discovered what was really going on, and it was very ugly.

This was not a neutral intervention, I was involved with the article TurnKey Linux, which is how I saw this come down. --Abd (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then I will clarify the sanction here for you: 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 and 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. ☼ 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

When someone, in their defense, points to literal meanings of words and legal logic, in contradiction to the apparent intention of guidelines, they are called "wikilawyers." When someone, attacking the behavior of someone else, argues the literal meanings of words and projects a technical substance as the intention of the guideline, as distinct from actual substance (technical substance is based on the meanings of words rather than the relationships of underlying realities), what is it? What's remarkable here is that both substance and literal meanings, if examined closely enough, point to the same conclusions, but those conclusions are different from what shallow thinking about meanings of words will suggest.

What's the substance of the sanction? This is the problem. There was no substance, in fact, because ArbComm did not adequately discuss the remedy, enough to make it plain, I suspect that each arbitrator may have had a different personal interpretation. Some, perhaps, would have preferred to simply ban me, and that was clear. Others wanted to avoid disruption but also recognized that I raised valid points, sometimes, so they tried to allow what was legitimate in their eyes, while preventing what was not. The sanction was a compromise, and actually discussing it in detail would have exposed major differences between the arbitrators. So they didn't debate it. They took the easy path, one that would seemingly satisfy everyone for a time. Perhaps I'd learn new ways and change my spots.

While I'm learning all the time, I'll be 66 in a few months. I'm not terribly likely to change much. I'm useful for certain things, not for others. I was an editor, professionally. I'm also a writer. They are two very different functions, Wikipedia confuses the hell out of them. Writers need editors. Editors who do not respect writers are boring pedants, obsessed with rules, which writers tend to consider undue restrictions on their creative freedom. The project requires cooperation and consensus, but dysfunctional editors -- who will in the real world be fired quickly -- will try to impose their own very limited vision. Basically, editors tend to become wikilawyers. And writers tend to hate that. Much of the disruption on Wikipedia is a result of this very classic cats-and-dogs relationship. Good writers are hard to find, and are extraordinarily valuable. Good editors aren't so much recognized, unfortunately, but what's a "good editor"? Is it one who is best at forcing writers to "follow the rules?" Not exactly! And an editor who takes that approach will either be fired or will bring the publisher to ruin. Rather, the editor interfaces between the writer and the publisher and the readership, and facilitates communication between them. Writers love good editors. And good editors love writers, and maybe even most of all those who break all the rules, but then allow the editor to make their work effective, by conforming to necessary rules defining and protecting the ultimate goals of the publisher. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That is also my understanding of the provision.  Sandstein  20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Abd, in view of the comments left at WP:AE#Result concerning Abd, and especially EdJohnston's comment, I would like to ask you to confirm in the AE thread that you agree to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained by Future Perfect at Sunrise above. If you not do so within an hour of your next edit, or if you do not do so in an unambiguous and convincing manner, I intend to enforce the restriction by means of a block as noted at AE. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I did agree to abide by any restriction you set pending resolution of this at ArbComm. I consider your interpretation preposterous. But you have the right to make and enforce that restriction, hence I agree to abide by that meaning pending some other decision by ArbComm. Thanks for being clear. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

General comment. I have taken the MYOB ban very seriously, and hardly a day goes by that I don't see some situation where I have personal knowledge that I believe would be useful, but I don't comment because of the ban. There really is a dispute about interpretation here, which I am hoping that ArbComm will clear up. I had intended to ask for clarification before, but, frankly, it didn't seem urgent. Then I came across the current situation, and was, indeed, aware that some would interpret my action as contrary to the sanction, because of prior comments, and ArbComm's failure to clear this up when clarification was previously requested by other editors. However, I also considered that there was an emergency, and that damage might be averted if I commented, and my understanding about the amount of time that ArbComm normally takes to respond to inquiries would mean that it would be too late. WP:IAR is worded as an imperative, not as a permission. I've always taken it seriously, and if, in fact, my action was truly inappropriate, in substance, not in technicalities, then I'd prefer to be banned entirely. It would be entirely too painful to continue here under those conditions.

Nevertheless, to be clear, if I had thought that the ban prohibited what I did, I'd have reported the issues and the evidence by email to ArbComm or to certain administrators for their review and action. Possibly this would have been better than what I did. I'm far from perfect. But now ArbComm, hopefully, will clarify, so I'll know for the future. --Abd (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar of Wisdom

		Barnstar of Wisdom
		For your perspicacity: where others merely see, you are able to understand. Also for your humility, detachment, selflessness, caring, dedication, hard work, and muddlisimilitudinous efficacy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Overdue. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously, some people don't agree. It takes all kinds. --Abd (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, your take, which I agree with, is that Wikipedia works best when decisions are made in an orderly way based on open discussion. I think we tend to disagree about fuzzy logic: as I see it, a decision by the Wikipedian community can't necessarily be built upon with logical deductions; it may be valid only in its original narrow context. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"originating party to the dispute"

There are two troublesome parts to my ban, and now maybe a third.

"vote in polls." There is no crisp definition of a poll. However, I've interpreted that a series of comments on a question, organized into support/oppose or confirm/overturn or keep/delete is a poll, and editors routine refer to these as polls. However, some seem to think that the page where the poll is taken matters. I don't see that in the ban. It's about "anywhere" on-wiki.

The ban was amended to state:

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)

The new problem is whether or not I'm allowed to comment by email or otherwise off-wiki on a dispute. I've interpreted the ban as referring to comment on-wiki, only.

But the basic problem involves the definition of "dispute" and what the "originating parties" are to a dispute.

Suppose I see an editor attacking another. Is this a dispute? I'd say no. It's a behavioral violation by the attacking editor, and I can warn that editor. Not to take a "side" in the dispute that was underlying the attack, but to take a position on Wikipedia behavior. The same with revert warring. There may be a dispute at an article, but reporting an editor for revert warring is not about that dispute. It is about revert warring.

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. The violation may involve some dispute between that editor and another, say a dispute over what text an article should have, but if I warn an editor for edit warring, this is not intervening in the dispute between the two editors, it is engaging in dispute resolution process over an asserted behavioral violation. If I revert an editor, this is a dispute, perhaps, between that editor and I. If I discuss the edit, it is not "discussing the dispute" without being an originating party. I took a content position, or sometimes a behavioral position. (I.e., I may revert an edit that I see as controversial when I believe it has not been adequately discussed.) That two editors may be arguing till the cows come how over that content doesn't change the independent relationship I have with each editor.

Apparently, as the sanction has been interpreted, I may file an AN/I report over an editor's behavior, otherwise "originating party" has no meaning at all! It's also been said that when I became involved in issues over the same articles and pages as two other editors, and apparently my warning one editor for harassing the other, or warning the other editor for failing to respect COI guidelines, was not considered to cross the line. And as an originating party, I could file a report to attract the attention of neutral administrators.

But if one of the parties files first, against the other, what can I do and what can I not do? Could I file an independent report? If not, why not? Could I, being involved in the current dispute, respond with the same information as I'd put in an independent report, but in the filed report, thus putting all related comment in the same place?

If one is permitted and the other is prohibited, the term "originating party" has become a mere technicality, the substance has been lost. But there was substance. I may see some dispute taking place, not being involved, and may then intervene with my trademarked walls-o-text, I presume. (ArbComm did not make clear what the harm was that it was preventing, except that something about what I write irritates some people. Length has often been cited, but it's also been pointed out by an arbitrator, when an editor complained about my "tome" that the comment by that editor to which I was responding was longer. Definitely, there is "something." That's obvious.)

I was often accused of wikilawyering. But, here, I'm being accused of violating a sanction following interpretations that are purely technical, rather than substantial. That's "wikilawyering." It's claimed that it's obvious. Having tried to live with the sanction for a few months, I'll confirm it isn't, and there have been many interpretations of the sanction that editors thought obvious enough to file an AE request over, that were not confirmed. There seems to be a general and easy opinion that my recent comments on AN/I were violations, because, anyone can see, there was an "originating party." It wasn't me, apparently. But wait a minute! GoRight points out above that the subject of an AN/I report did not originate it. Surely ArbComm did not intend to disallow me to respond to reports about me. Some of the claims about my alleged violations were where I responded to comments about me!

No, I think ArbComm intended to say "original party." Already involved. And, apparently, it's further restricted to being currently involved. I.e., not ancient history.

I was involved with the filing editor, over the previous two days or so, with regard to the matters the editor filed regarding. I was in substance involved. Just not named. And if I said why I was not mentioned, I'd be violating my agreement with Sandstein. None of this here is about the dispute with that editor, per se. No action is being sought in that matter at this time.

It's pretty bad, actually. ArbComm never explained what I'd done that was offensive, so the whole process of interpretation then isn't based on not repeating prior actions considered disruptive, but on technicalities of language and imagination of "what were they thinking?" And everyone comes up with their own idea depending on the result they want, which for a whole cadre of editors is quite simple: ban Abd. Do they know what "Abd" means? --Abd (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Future Perfect, at any given time there may exist many overlapping conflicts. You are arguing one line of thinking, and, I'll agree, the interpretation that "originating party" refers to an underlying conflict is correct. Yet if it is correct, then who actually files an AN/I report is irrelevant. You have, again, a generally correct view of the intention of the sanction, but it is one which defines my role as an editor purely in terms of "me." I.e., it completely disregards the possibility that I act to benefit the project, and to protect the project, not "myself." I'm here because the project is my business. You would seem to intend to restrict me to pursuing my own interests. Further, if your interpretation were the whole story, I'd have violated the sanction much earlier than my comment at AN/I. I'd have violated the sanction by reverting some edits of one of the parties. I'd have violated the sanction by warning the editors, as I did. Yet only the AN/I report was considered a violation by Sandstein, thus, while it would seem that you agree with Sandstein, you don't. From what you have written, you would draw the line in a different place.

And the whole point of a topic ban is to draw a clear line, and when there is no agreement on where the line is, the purpose of a ban is defeated and disruption is practically guaranteed. Hence the need for clarification by ArbComm.

My basic point is that there is no real consensus here, there is only some general agreement (among two or three admins) that I violated the sanction in the AN/I comments. But if we look at the details, the logic is different for each. There is no consistent understanding as to what the sanction intends, and unless we understand the intention, every interpretation is wikilawyering! It is attempting to derive conclusive rules of behavior purely from a set of words that may not have had conclusive intentions behind them.

My own understanding is that there is no coherent intention behind the sanction, except to prevent "disruption." The problem is that there was no agreement on what was disruption and what was not. It should be realized that some of my work is disruptive, on the face, and by nature, because I've confronted disruptive behavior of administrators. I've attempted to do this in a minimally disruptive way, but, quite simply, it's not possible to avoid all disruption without tolerating intolerable damage. I can and will maintain that my comments in the AN/I report were necessary under IAR, and that the substance of these comments was ignored -- so far -- and instead I've become the focus as a substitute, the flames being fanned by editors with old axes to grind. No problem with addressing my behavior separately, but if someone has been ordered by a court to stay away from their former spouse, but from a distance they see the spouse's house is on fire, and they rush to the door and knock on it and yell "Fire!", and, being first there, even enter to try to rescue the spouse and children, should they be punished for violating the injunction? Usually, they would not even be charged with it, if there was such a strong reason for acting as they did. And if they were charged, and the prosecutor, as a prosecutor might, simply pointed out that they violated the injunction, which they did, because the injunction was clear and the literal meaning was ignored, there is not a court in any civilized place which would then disregard the argument that public policy (the common-law equivalent of WP:IAR) trumped the injunction, and most courts would even reprimand the prosecutor for ignoring this fundamental principle and wasting everyone's time. And if, on top of this, the prosecutor had a conflict of interest, the prosecutor's job would be toast, for abusing the public trust in pursuit of a private agenda.

If I yelled "Fire!" when there was no fire, however, I'd be guilty of disruption even without the ban, and, indeed, I'd prefer to be banned, because it would mean that I'd become dangerous to the project. (Legally, there would be no criminal sanctions if it could be shown that I believed there was a fire, but there might be action, such as institutionalization, to prevent harm from my delusions. I.e., I can be banned here for delusional action that disrupts the project. ArbComm actually felt it necessary to note this as a principle, in the subject arbitration. Unlike many of the editors screaming for my head, ArbComm did recognize good faith behind my work.)

I did not particularly argue IAR at the AE filing, because I do not believe that I ignored the ban's intention and only a shallow interpretation of it. I was aware of that possible interpretation, because it had been asserted, and where IAR comes into play is that, most "properly" and least disruptively, I'd have waited to get a clarification before acting. It's too bad that ArbComm tossed the mentorship provision, because I could have consulted a mentor quickly. But it was the nature of the situation that immediate action was required. And because my comments were ignored at AN/I, there has been what appears to be serious damage. And that will come out later, if this sequence of events is reviewed, and we may know better then. --Abd (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

@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)

No, the reason for the restriction is that when Abd takes actions he sees as proper he is not always right but has several times pursued the dispute to the bitter end and beyond anyway - to the point where ArbCom has decided, on behalf of the project as a whole, that we'd rather not have his help in such cases, thanks all the same. Wikilawyering over exactly how he can become involved in someone else's dispute without violating the sanction is missing the point pretty comprehensively. A comment on a talk page "I agree with X" is unlikely to be a problem, taking up cudgels on behalf of X is very likely to be a problem. This is not, I think, very hard to understand. Abd has mainly been doing a fair job of minding his own, and I think your counsel here is poor. Abd needs to learn brevity and when to step back, which he's been doing, but you're encouraging loquacity and the thought that perhaps he should get involved. That's really not a good idea for Abd's sake. He is capable of editing uncontroversially and knowledgeably in some areas but he has a personality characterised by endless repetition of long-dismissed allegations and refusal to accept consensus when it's against him, consist with his stated ADHD. This is stressful on everybody else and no doubt on him. Better to just keep away from such things. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. I can agree with some aspects of what you wrote, though you aren't exactly disinterested. You -- and others -- wrote the "beating the dead horse" argument before, when it appeared that my arguments had been rejected by a majority of editors commenting. But can you point to an example where I pursued a dispute "to the bitter end and beyond" and was not sustained, in the end? Those "rejected arguments" were accepted by ArbComm, because they were firmly based in policy and guidelines and an expectation of ultimate community consensus, which takes time.

Where do I repeat, recently, "long dismissed allegations?" I certainly don't want to do that! What a waste of everyone's time, especially my own!

In this case, the problem is that I did not become involved (in a way violating the sanction) in "someone else's dispute." But if I describe what I did, to show that it wasn't that, I'll run afoul of the very interpretation of the sanction that I'm claiming is way beyond the original intention. Whether or not the MYOB sanction was a good idea is another matter; there is process for me to clarify and challenge it, if I choose. I have not done so yet (beyond a narrow RfAr/Clarification that I'm asking be withdrawn). I have indeed done what you suggest I should do, which is that, generally, I've "kept away from such things." I see a great deal, and I make no comment precisely because of the sanctions, and this happens many times a day.

But there is, apparently, a gray area that others see as being over the line, and. while I have not pushed the edge, as to what I knew of the meaning, others think I've crossed the line. Most of these complaints have *not* been confirmed, but the very fact that they were made then contributes to the impression that I've been pushing the edges.

There is one edit that I made where I knew that it would raise a fuss, and that was what I considered a true IAR emergency, and, I believe I could establish this with adequate discussion -- and I wasn't blocked for this. The edit I was most recently blocked for I had the full right to make, I propose, whether it was "wise" or not.

JzG, as a former administrator who butted up against the Wikipedia Problem, who obviously became frustrated and burned out and thus impatient, you could be an important part of the solution. Email me if you are interested. You could be helpful even without reading more than a little of what I write. --Abd (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I would never claim to be disinterested, nor would I claim to be entirely free of the same faults myself. I may email you, if I don't it's not because I'm not interested but because I am a little preoccupied right now: I am trying to work out how to fit an increasingly busy amateur singing career around a professional life that also seems to be, much to my surprise, taking me in new and exciting directions - to say nothing of this being written on a train home at three minutes to midnight over a dodgy 3G connection. For the avoidance of doubt I do not think you are currently engaging in the sort of deceased equine flagellation that has caused problems in the past, which is why I was counselling GoRight not to even give the appearance of encouraging you back to a path from which, I think, you are departing. I suspect that those of us (I include myself) whoa re drawn to "teh drmahz" are, like alcoholics, never truly cured, only "in recovery". Feedback should be consistent and always directed towards the path of virtue. A tip from a past and present battle veteran: take the hot articles off your watchlist and politely decline any invitation to return. Oh, and however annoying the dispute, always consider: if I met this person in the pub, would we laugh over it or come to blows? I suspect we'd laugh. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. One of the things I saw first about on-line communication, back in the 1980s, was how low the bandwidth was. Human communication in person is only a little in words, and without the other cues, the words can be very, very difficult to "read." So people make assumptions.

But, Guy, I didn't encounter problems here from "hot articles" on my watchlist. Sure, I could cut out all the talk pages of my wikifriends, I could not ever look at the noticeboards, and ... I'd still get dinged and hauled before AE until the arbs are sick of seeing my name and assume it's me causing all this fuss. Maybe it is me, the very fact that it's known that I can see what I see. (Or, to be fair, that I imagine I see it.) Sure, I could wipe my watchlist and, say, just do Recent Changes or some other wikignoming.

But ... I also have a lot of interesting and useful stuff to do besides Wikipedia, plus my work here was oriented toward developing more efficient process, and the on-wiki part of that has been explored to due process limits. I've been looking around at the project, and much of it makes me almost literally sick. It's getting worse, not better. And I mean with respect to articles where I have no POV except maybe some transient interest in reading about the subject, that's why I looked. Dull. Deadly dull. Knowledge, perhaps, but with no spirit, no wisdom. There are articles that are things of beauty. And the author is under attack, being bitten by hundreds of ants.

I invited you with respect to the off-wiki work because I truly don't hold any grudge against you, because that work is designed to at least begin to solve the problems that caused your own work to become so frustrating, and because your experience could be extremely valuable. In any case, thanks for the comments. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Re this statement, do I understand this correctly that you are considering retiring from wiki editing, but at the same time still continuing to engage in systematic "process work" off-wiki, i.e. systematic off-wiki activities designed to influence decision processes on the English Wikipedia? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions for you, FP. Are you suggesting that Arbcom somehow has the authority to restrict the off-wiki activities of individuals? If not what is the relevance of your query? --GoRight (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'm already doing it. My conclusion has been, for about two years, that it is impossible to address the well-known problems of Wikipedia, the kind of problems that have led to massive retirements, announced and otherwise, without off-wiki structure, that is, without structure that is independent of the disruption possible on-wiki. It is the only way for the community to tackle the problem, and, I'll note, ArbComm attempted to set up an advisory committee, which was effectively disrupted because it was organized by ArbComm, which is vulnerable. (An "advisory committee," quite similar in some ways to what ArbComm attempted to set up, is what I have in mind, with devices to insure that it was maximally representative of the community and able to effectively deliberate and communicate with the community and anyone else seeking advice.) The community is free and independent, as it must be, to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia, and its acceptance of on-wiki restrictions is voluntary. This is classic organizational stuff, the problems of Wikipedia were predictable. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, "influence" does not mean that such work would be designed to promote a personal agenda over, say, some POV, and such process would be open to all Wikipedia editors, subject to rules which the participating community would determine itself, and there can be more than one such "advisory committee," it is the nature of the process I'm proposing that it cannot be centrally controlled so as to systematically exclude significant factions from participation. I could not possibly personally control all such committees, only ones where I have special privileges, i.e., if there is a mailing list and I'm the "owner" and have not turned that over. But if someone disagrees with how I function as the owner-trustee, I would either invite the community to replace me, or if it declined, I'd invite the one disputing my management to start their own list, and I'd certainly make sure that the existence of such a list was announced. That's how to conduct oneself when one is actually seeking informed consensus. I will probably not personally announce the existence of any such lists on-wiki, you know why not! But others might. Maybe you will, eh? --Abd (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Dispute with Future Perfect

By the way, FP. We have a dispute. You blocked me in violation of recusal policy, over an edit critical of your actions, and you did not follow procedure by going to AE, you simply enforced a possibly controversial interpretation of the ban, and you blocked me for a week instead of the shorter initial blocks required by the arbitration remedies. How do you suggest that we resolve this dispute, with minimal disruption? It could be very simple. Or not, it's largely up to you. No rush, but, please, deliberate speed. --Abd (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no dispute with you. I do administrative enforcement of Arbcom rulings about you, and will continue to do so. The fact that you may not like these actions doesn't create a "dispute". My last block of you was submitted to Arbcom for review by myself [2] and found no objection. Your own unblock request during that block was declined by another admin. Oh, and by the way, there is no "procedure" of "going to AE" that I would have been required to follow. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no review by ArbComm of the problem with your block, and I was prevented from commenting by the block, in effect. I've said plenty of things to ArbComm that they did not comment on. Does that mean that they agreed with it?

I disagree with the decision not to unblock me to allow me to comment, which is what I'd requested, but that's relatively minor and I elected not to contest it. Now, I can present evidence to you here, or elsewhere. Where would you suggest, since it seems you'd ned to see the evidence and arguments, I was hoping it could be even simpler than that. Or could you suggest a mediator? Someone you would trust to tell you if you made a mistake? Again, this can be simple or complicated, your choice. As I wrote before, when I've complained about recusal failure, and was blown off, and I pursued it, I've never missed. You might take that into consideration. Remember, I'm not the one who decides, in the end. If your actions were fully proper, you have nothing to worry about. If you made a mistake, just acknowledge it, and that would actually finish the matter. Notice, again, that when I filed RfD or RfAr before, I did not seek desysopping, I only sought clarification. Seek that yourself, and you will not find me in conflict with you. I guarantee you, though, from your comment above, we do have a dispute, and your denial is actually preposterous.

It has nothing to do with "disliking your actions." It has to do with recusal policy, which you seem to have no interest in at all. That's dangerous. I'd suggest considering this more carefully. We would all benefit, including yourself. --Abd (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct venue for assessing the validity of an admin action is an admin RFC/U. Only, you couldn't file one now, because you never managed to persuade even a single other editor that there was a dispute to be solved. Or perhaps you didn't bother trying, I don't know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, for obvious reasons, RfC is not yet the correct venue. I'd really suggest a review of WP:DR. The first step I just attempted here, and it looks like we are done with that, though you could decide to go back at any time. Do understand, please, that I've been through this before, with both kinds of results. You are probably only aware of the nasty outcomes. It does not have to be that way.

You are correct. I didn't bother trying. Yet. I hadn't taken the first step yet. So now it's time for the second. I have choices. I do understand from the above that you are, more or less, waiving any right to insist on steps before RfC. Correct? But I will take those steps anyway, as is also my right, and a real necessity if RfC is to be filed. For whom did I file an RfC before, I've only filed one? And who certified it? Do you remember? And what was the outcome? Please be careful, FP. A little caution here could save a lot of problems later. In fact, one sentence from you, simply confirming policy and its application, could end all this. An RfC will be much more of a nuisance, that can be predicted. And I mean "nuisance" for everyone. Including me.

Unfortunately, there are administrators who do not support recusal policy, and who have openly defied it. They get away with this far too often, and the only way to enforce the policy is to raise the issue when it's violated. But if you support the policy, and perhaps erred, simple to fix, and punishment is never my goal. If you support the policy, and disagree that you violated it, then this is a dispute, and that's why we'd need to get help. I assume good faith, FP, I'm not asserting anything other than that about you.

By the way, if I try to find a third opinion or other editor to seek to resolve the dispute, and fail with both, that will end it, at least for now. That's how DR works to prevent frivolous escalation. Let's see what happens, okay? --Abd (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please delete your subpage

Please delete this subpage: User:Abd/Response to Verbal. The most obvious reason, among several compelling ones, is that its usefulness has past. Thanks, Verbal chat

Thanks for making the request here instead of immediately at MfD, as others did! This page is one of a whole series of pages in which I responded to comments of other editors at the RfAr. Because there were many editors filing comments requiring detailed response, to respect the work that those editors put into them, and to address the issues raised, I did not respond in my Evidence section directly, but by reference to the pages in my user space. One of my referenced pages has already been moved to WP:Arbitration subspace. The rest of them should be, and, assuming that it is not opposed, that's what I'll do. It is there for the record, and I do believe that it could become useful in the Future. However, if you wish, the content can be blanked. It's better if I do it than you.... Is that what you would prefer?

You may also comment on the Talk page attached to the subject page, but please do that after I've moved it, so as to not create an extra page and redirect.... The user page as it is should not be edited, because it should show the state of the pages as of the decision by ArbComm. All those pages may have been a part of the decision-making process, for better or worse, by some arbitrators. Deletion of a lot of the evidence has already been requested, and denied. --Abd (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This page and several others should be retained as part of the historical record of an arbitration case. It should not be removed unless and until its full contents (including history) are archived as part of the Arbitration case itself. I believe at one time one the the arbitrators wanted to have this done but it does not seem to have happened unless I am unclear on where it was done. I have a similar page in my user space which should likewise be preserved, as do other editors. --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence/User:Abd/Cabal. Yes, GoRight. The other pages that I created should be moved to Arb space, and such pages should probably originally be placed there or moved when the case closes. A user, in fact, should not be able to do what Verbal proposes, and that argument was presented by others, who did not want to see the "Cabal" page deleted because they believe, apparently, that it should stand as evidence of my serious derangement. Time will tell, eh? I have a lot of experience looking back at stuff I wrote decades ago. I'm not quite as crazy as many think. But, of course, I could start losing it any time, it happens, and I'd be the last to know. Prepare for this, people, and be careful what you write, the future is watching. Develop real friends, the kind who will tell you when they think you are wrong. It's easier to learn now, when you are younger. --Abd (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! I just reread the page. Thanks for calling my attention to it, Verbal. If I made any mistakes there, please let me know, and I can possibly annotate it some way, definitely I could comment on Talk and put a note on the page referring to it, specifying that this note was added after the RfAr, maybe I could even use strikeout with such a note. Any specific complaints? (I did invite correction of errors during the case, and there were no such responses.) --Abd (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, as it says "draft" I never responded to it, as I would have done had you used it. I did ask if it was used and I was told no, I can't remember who by but I think it was directed to you. So it should either be blanked or deleted (I see no reason to keep it as part of the record, as it was never used and was not therefore part of the process). I remember objecting at the time that it is not factual, but I really don't think that's useful to go into. So please either blank or delete it. You could blank it and put a note that it was never used and the target disputes the claims but they are no longer relevant. Thanks, Verbal chat 21:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All the responses were labeled DRAFT because I did intend to revise them to clean them up, particularly if any corrections were suggested. None were, and that case spun totally out of control, it was way to much for anyone to handle. The opinion of any arbitrator on whether or not the pages were considered is not reliable as to the usage by the entire panel, so to delete these pages would properly require a motion by ArbComm, and I doubt it is worth that. I would personally want to know if I distorted the facts in that comment, or in any of the comments, but it's up to you whether or not you'd want to take the time.

I have blanked the page, moved it to Arbcomm subspace, and opened the Talk page with a reference to this discussion, and you are completely welcome to comment on that Talk page, that should go without saying. It's not my page any more, though I would certainly oppose deleting it.

I intend to move the rest of these comment pages, but moved this one so that I could open the Talk page and not then have to move that, too. Thanks for bringing this up. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Evidence/User:Abd/Response to Verbal

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Verbal chat 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DNTTR. Especially one that implies something that is totally not true (like the creation of an attack page). Verbal, that page was created for and cited in an RfAr. There is no way that this is a simple "attack page," it was, in fact, a response to your attacks and misleading evidence. However, why are you bringing this up now? If that page contained errors, you were invited to correct them long ago, when the page was cited in the evidence, as "draft," yet you now claim that you saw errors, but you waited to find out if it was "used" or not. It's not clear what that would mean, but, presumably, if I'd taken the word "draft" off of it? But the time to fix errors is with a draft! No, something else is going on here. What is it, Verbal? Why now? --Abd (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that the page was not actually deleted. I moved it to WP space, as was done with another evidence page that was likewise effectively a subpage of my evidence in that case. What was deleted was the redirect left behind when the page was moved back to my user space. There was a threat of MfD, but one does not seem to have been actually filed. --Abd (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

vandalism

Abd, quit vandalizing the IRV article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.171.11 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Moi? Vandalize? I was out of reverts anyway. Anyone seeing this, take a look at the history of the IP removing content from the article for a declared political agenda. I didn't put that material there, but removing it without discussion? No. Otherwise, I DGAF --Abd (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect, thanks for warning the IP editor. However, even though the IP was edit warring with two editors, you allowed the edit to stand. If you look at 71.234.171.11, you will see that this IP started up with vandalism to a related article, and that the second revert had a reason given, (Removed disputed information inserted for political reasons by opponents of IRV--to influence voters in an important referendum vote in Burlington, VT on town meeting day 2010), which, on the face, establishes a political agenda for the edit. It's true I used a vandalism template, but because of the history of actual vandalism, and I also noted that there might be a good-faith purpose to the edit. I wonder if you might consider taking the article back to the pre-political agenda state, as it would be a bit inconvenient for me to do it at the moment :-). As to the content, I have not seen a discussion of that content. I am familiar with the history reported there, and it's solid, but have no comment on balance or other issues at this point. I was asking this editor to discuss, not just rip sourced material out because there is an upcoming referendum. --Abd (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again

With this edit, you have continued exactly the behaviour you were previously warned to stop: discussing the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston. Moreover, you did so in terms that amount to personal attacks, comparing S.J.'s actions to acts of criminal violence ("mugging"; calling S.J. a "mugger"). I don't know what makes you think you are allowed to do these things on the Arbcom page, of all places, when you are forbidden to do them everywhere else. You are not. And to forestall another misunderstanding you hinted at: you will not be allowed to file Arbcom requests about that dispute either.

You were clearly warned, by Sandstein and by myself, and several other admins have in the meantime agreed that my warning was justified. You promised to heed the warning, but didn't. I am therefore now imposing another enforcement block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect I think it would be better if you stop with these macho style blocks. Abd has a different style than most editors however from what can I see he's a good faith editor who much cares for the project. I have also noticed the other day you made this other weird block [3] which leaves me a bit speechless. Blocking a guy for 12 months because you don't get what's the dispute about and his english is bad? Come on. Perhaps it wouldn't be bad if you would try to find a wider consensus for such blocks. Just my 2 cents.  Dr. Loosmark  22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Above on this section, I discussed my claim with Future Perfect that he had improperly blocked me before, for an edit in which I criticized him. He has denied that allegations of involvement would prevent him from insisting on blocking at his discretion. It's an arbitratable issue, it appears, and he's now allowed a complete bypass of normally required preliminaries. I do not think that my edit violated the sanction at all; necessary process before ArbComm, where I was very clearly the "originating party," would seem to be exempt from the sanction he claims to be enforcing, explicitly, and surely ArbComm can handle inappropriate behavior that happens on its pages. It's hardly going to escape notice in a simple request (evidence and workshop pages can get out of hand). Thanks, Loosmark, for the comment. Be careful, and be patient. There is no need to create disruption over this, but the more editors who are aware and watching, the easier it all gets.

• Blocked? Funny, I don't feel blocked. Seems I can edit anything I want. Thanks, FP. I think you have made things much simpler. Truly, I didn't expect this. I like surprises. I hope you do too. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  FYI, I have opened [4]. MathSci thinks I am forum shopping and drama mongering. JzG believes I may do more harm than good. In light of these points if you prefer that I just drop the matter please let me know. Otherwise I am inclined to let the matter sit at AN and see what the uninvolved administrators there think. It is not my intent to create drama, only to have an independent review of the block. --GoRight (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Pope is Catholic. As to AN, be nice. Be careful. It seems that this goes to ArbComm no matter what, so don't spend any important capital. I'd say, though, good idea to keep requesting independent review until it shows up, and the editors you mention are certainly not neutral. "Uninvolved Mathsci" Hah! Independent review is what's missing, too often. But the issues are complex, much more complex than they can appear on the surface, and it may need ArbComm attention anyway.
• Don't argue with them. You said your piece. Let them say theirs. It all helps in the end, but more is less. Keep asking for neutral comment every once in a while until there is some. But, remember, it may not appear. Most sensible editors don't read the noticeboards!
• Sandstein should be notified. I don't know if he's on board this. If he is, and if he approves of the week block, I probably will not appeal it, even though Future Perfect is "involved." That is, I won't put up an unblock template. RfAr seems inevitable now. I'd roughly asked Sandstein about situations like this, though. He didn't answer with definitive enforcement decisions. He did not, however, comment on material I had already placed there at ArbComm. Perhaps he didn't read it?
• I did not expect, though, to be blocked for commenting before ArbComm, and particularly to be blocked for it by Future Perfect. That was a case in which I was the originating party, after all, and the circumstances of the issue at AE were therefore relevant. I really don't see that as covered by the ban, and nothing Sandstein said made it clear that it was, unless Sandstein's clarification was totally removed from the original intention, and I didn't read it that way.
• Some of this may have been a long time coming. Don't present long argument at AN, keep it very simple. Above, there is a section where I laid out the dispute with Future Perfect. I was hoping this could be resolved way before ArbComm. Seems he'd prefer something much swifter. The issue of "I'm in charge of AE, no matter what you think, no matter how it looks," must be confronted. It's not just about him, other admins have made the same mistake. It's disruptive and unnecessary. If someone claims involvement for admin after admin, maybe there is a point to insistence (though surely there are three neutral admins, and at about that point the poor editor would be indeffed), but when that's clearly not happening ... if he wanted to keep his bit, I suspect he just blew it, badly. He was already in hot water, but it could have been very easily resolved. It might simply have gone away, I do get distracted. Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the idea of not editing. What a concept! Haven't tried to edit anything other than this page. Don't plan to.
• It may take me about a week (convenient!) to get the filing together, and I'll be seeking help. Volunteers can email me.
• "Vague threats," they've been saying. What's vague about this? But if there is no support, if I have to do this alone, why bother? If I have to do it alone, it means the time is not ripe and it will be pure disruption. It will be bad enough with two. Probably a good idea to wait for three editors at least. I'm not convinced there are three clueful editors left, a huge number have left, which is why I'm not holding my breath about what happens at AN. Sometimes, though .... you never can tell. If there aren't enough left, the wiki has become not worth saving. It will fall. I know the mechanisms that will bring it down, fairly well. That are bringing it down. Lots of editors, highly respected, know this, but they don't know what to do about it. --Abd (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note to admins considering unblock

I'm indifferent. I have work to do on-wiki, but I also have plenty to do off-wiki. If you believe that the welfare of the project will be better served by an unblock, then consider yourself free to do it, within what is allowed as to reversing administrative decisions. Probably Future Perfect should be consulted, unless there is consensus that his block was involved (notice the dispute section above, and if more information is needed -- that section was not accompanied by evidence about the existing dispute because I didn't want to write it as the first approach -- but, if asked to do so, I would.)

Please do not unblock me if it would cause more disruption than it would prevent; the block will expire in a week anyway and delaying unblock that long is not likely to cause serious harm. On the other hand, comment on the propriety of the block is welcome here, and there is also an open RfAr/Clarification. I had filed that, and it was over comment in it that I was blocked. Possibly I should have a transcluded section there, in my section of the RfAr, and I'm going to need guidance from ArbComm as to any limits to be placed on what I can say there.

I could be unblocked under a provision that I only edit the RfAr page, though that's problematic here because I was blocked for editing the RfAr page! Not sure I've ever seen anything quite like this before. --Abd (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reflecting on this for a few days, I conclude that the least disruptive course of action for me at this time is to wait out the block, a few more days. When I return to normal editing, I will decide whether or not to file an RfAr against the administrator who blocked me, based on evidence and advice currently being gathered (off-wiki) (or some resolution perhaps proposed by Future Perfect or another editor). There has already been an AN discussion over the block, and certainly there is no consensus there for unblock. Therefore unblocking me could be disruptive, and I do not recommend it. The project can survive me being blocked for a few more days, I'm sure, and I have plenty of good uses for the time. Any dispute between me and Future Perfect, the blocking administrator, can be resolved in an orderly fashion. Because of the AN review, however, it's clear that RfC/Admin, as suggested by Future Perfect, would be a waste of time. Either this will be resolved by agreement of Future Perfect, by its becoming moot, or by ArbComm, and that might be very simple. --Abd (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Your messages

Hello, this is in reply to your messages per mail and on my talk page requesting my opinion on your current situation. I am refraining from helping you parse the fine detail of your restriction as applied to various hypothetical or real situations, because I believe you are going down the wrong path entirely with this wikilawyering approach. You have chosen to not heed my advice, and while I have not evaluated the merits of your current block, I can't say that I am much surprised by it. My advice is to sit out this block and, again, to just stop discussing all matters related to disputes, arbitration or sanctions.  Sandstein  06:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandstein. I'm going to stick to basics, here. I withdraw my agreement to accept your interpretation of the sanction, which was far stricter than the plain meaning. Voluntary compliance carries an expectation of protection. There was none. I have now, only one recourse, which is ArbComm. I understand that I'm not following your advice, which assumes goals different from mine, I suspect. Thanks for responding, and you may consider yourself relieved of any further responsibility on that regard.

But one comment. You were not surprised. That speaks volumes. It means that you accept and consider routine the abuse of discretion represented by Future Perfect's action. It means that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I was, in fact surprised. I really didn't think he'd be so willing to set himself up to be taken to RfAr immediately. It's hard to do that based on a single block. He's handed me two, now, in a manner that has foreclosed all otherwise necessary preliminary process. I'll probably need about a week to put it together. Practice makes perfect, you know.

I don't do this for myself. That's why I'm not taking your advice. If my goal were to secure my personal rights, you'd be right on. --Abd (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2010

By the way, tentatively I will indeed sit the block out unless I'm spontaneously unblocked, and I've suggested that this only be done with caution. I plan to file RfAr over one or maybe two issues, and that takes a lot of time and effort, so the block is actually helpful in a way. It does prevent a little article work, but there is nothing that can't wait or be handled some other way. GoRight filed an AN report over this block, and so far, almost no positive response (i.e., toward the idea that the block was abusive), only DanT. What that means is that RfAr is the only recourse, I've been in this place before, with my complaints being later confirmed by ArbComm. Apparent consensus; ban Abd. (2/3, in one case, and almost unanimous in another). Actual consensus and ArbComm decision: the administrator was abusing the tools. But it takes better process to find that consensus. And what's being shown is that ArbComm intervention and decision will be necessary. That's sad, in a way, and I hope ArbComm will establish more efficient process to deal with situations like this, and even to prevent them, because the community is basically paralyzed and can't. Unless it happens off-wiki, Plan B. --Abd (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the Streisand effect, my friend.

Remember, and mark it well. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

response from Abd

Indeed. Streisand is a favorite of mine, but that doesn't mean she didn't do something very stupid, and I see that stupidity here pretty frequently. But it's hard to tell the difference between someone who doesn't realize that making a huge fuss will, er, attract attention, with consequences they will actually dislike, and someone who wants the attention and doesn't care if they get, say, blocked or banned. Like yourself, presumably. Or someone who doesn't [DGAF|GAF} and just likes to sing loudly. Or someone who simply considers himself obligated to testify to what he knows, until it's clearly become useless. At that point, the obligation ceases to exist. To paraphrase, it's not over until the fat lady dies from throat cancer. Or prostate cancer, in this case, perhaps. Frankly, I'll sing, or do the other thing, as long as I can, and I'm deeply grateful that I can still do both and there are a few people who like to listen, and one who likes the other thing. One is enough for that! If someone wants to stop me here, they know how to push the button, but I don't recommend it. Streisand effect, you know. Those block buttons only control on-wiki edits, and even then, not terribly well, for them to work depends on my voluntary compliance. So far, that compliance remains an obligation. That's just a fact, not a threat. I'm amazed at how many people get outraged when a fact is pointed out.... I shouldn't be, since I've been noticing this for my entire adult life, but I am. Thanks for stopping by. I do also have an account on Wikipedia Review, if they don't ban me. And I'm easy to find, I use a real name and my address is in lots of places. --Abd (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request regarding current RfAr/Clarification

There is an open Request for Clarification regarding a sanction decided at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley, see live link, or permanent link.

Newyorkbrad is the only arbitrator to comment there so far.[5] I agree with him, and, unless other arbitrators wish to address the issues raised, I support the close of this request with no finding or clarification. My reason for this: it is apparent that any useful clarification would require more discussion than can be accomplished at RfAr/Clarification, and that I was blocked while this request was pending, for comments made in the request itself, is an additional impediment.

There is no need for extra debate or argument. I have stated that I am willing to accept a tighter restriction than the way in which I interpreted the sanction, pending clarification by ArbComm. So the status quo is that the restriction is tight, though not necessarily as tight as defined by the administrator who blocked me. I do not consider myself restricted from what the sanction explicitly permits, and I'd argue that he did so consider. I accepted Sandstein's decision ("clarification") as a neutral administrator, pending ArbComm review, not Future Perfect's who was already involved, and I had already claimed that he was involved in dispute with me.

I will continue to respect Sandstein's tightening as standing and binding on me, and will interpret this very narrowly but as originally stated, and it did permit legitimate comment before ArbComm, when I am an originating party, as is normal. Normally, I can, having filed, respond there to comments from other editors, also made there, which is what I did. ArbComm specifically allowed me to originate a case, and if I'm clearly involved as well, I see nothing in the sanction which requires me to avoid it.

I will not use this as a loophole to drive trucks through carrying my opinion about disputes between other editors, and I will avoid, in such a filing, if it happens, unnecessary mention of disputes between other editors. Obviously, if I file a case claiming involved use of tools by an admin, I will present evidence of involvement and existing disputes or other reason that recusal would have been required, which would only mention other disputes peripherally, and which will not be an attempt to resolve those other issues.

I hope that there is more clerk attention to an actual RfAr than there has been to the existing RfAr/Clarification, which, as it stands, includes an illegitimate edit by someone other than me to the material I filed. It's been pointed out by GoRight, with clerk attention requested,[6] and nothing was done. Nevertheless, if the request is closed without action, it's moot. The real point here is that if clerks were following filings before ArbComm, surely this would have been noticed and reverted or moved, and possibly the editor warned. --Abd (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding examiner.com

Abd, when a blacklisting request is not mentioning the abuse, then that does not mean that it was not abused. Also, the request does give other reasons for blacklisting besides it not being a reliable source, which you forgot to mention in the de-listing request. For Examiner.com, it was abused by at least one account, and there have been a.o. requests where de-listing was requested because the de-list-requester wanted to link to it to earn money (which was one of the reasons it was blacklisted as well). May I ask you in following de-listing requests to give a full picture, and maybe also looking a bit behind the scenes of what happened in stead of only mentioning the ArbCom remark that sites should not be blacklisted solely on a source not being an unreliable source (which, IMHO, even forgetting the not-mentioned abuse, was not the case here). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When the bulk of the arguments about why a page should be blacklisted consist of denials that it could possibly be usable as reliable source, it creates the appearance of a content justification of blacklisting. The issue here for me was that, simply exploring sources for Talk, I found that an edit with three links in it was rejected, and I had to try a number of variations before figuring out which one was blacklisted. That's a software fault (the rejection should always give the offending link or links), but I've seen many novice editors run into this and become quite frustrated. I'm not a novice, and I knew what to do, but I was still frustrated!

On the other hand, I agree there is a reason to assert unusability, that is, it removes a weight that would otherwise be stronger for not listing. I'm not attached, Beetstra. For others who might wonder what this is about, see this permanent link.

I did sufficient due diligence, I believe, by linking to the blacklisting discussion, you expect way too much if you want more than that. Note that the blacklisting request actually stated, I'm not aware of any concerted spam campaign, but the other issues related to examiner.com links have convinced me that we should be blocking them to discourage their use as a reference. None of the discussion referred to actual abuse, only to a theory and assumption that abuse might be possible due site policies. Isolated editorial misbehavior would not justify blacklisting, I assume you realize that. We've been over all this before. Do you recognize why the granting of that request, without better explanation, was a cause of concern? --Abd (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I added some comment to Talk:Examiner.com to possibly help someone else running into the problem. I notice also that there is an open whitelisting request. The only basis for denial is a content argument, apparently, so I'm not going to close it! But it shouldn't be left there unanswered like that! Do you recall, Beetstra, that I proposed that whitelisting be handled more or less routinely with granting it to apparently responsible editors? -- and, quite appropriately, reference to the reasons why the editor might want to not actually use the page in an article. I see that you granted a request, for an article written by an apparent expert, good work. What I'm noticing, looking at examiner.com pages, is the apparent quality of the articles, which is quite high for "user-generated content." I've seen a lot worse in "reliable sources." Not to mention Wikipedia.... Maybe there is something to the Examiner model! (I'm not proposing any changes to WP:RS, just in case you'd think otherwise.)--Abd (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Beetstra original response, replying with interspersal

I know the problems with the software and the blacklist. It is unclear what is blocked and why. There are also voices (and I would be grateful for that as well), that the blacklist had some logging facility which shows if editors attempt to spam/use blacklisted sites. The blacklisting request indeed indeed starts of with 'it is not reliable anyway', though Hu12 does hint to the rest, it is a pay-per-view site, self published, no editorial oversight. That pay-per-view is thé significant problem here. The man-in-the-street can earn money with this site, one gets an account, scrapes info or writes rubbish, links to it from Wikipedia, and for any fool that follows the link you get money. The spam incentive on examiner.com is huge. And that proved quickly after blacklisting, where an editor requested de-listing (or whitelisting, I can't remember), which was denied with 'this is not a reliable piece of information, are you not here to make money?', to which the requester replied 'Off course I am here to make money, would you not?'. It pays to spam, Abd, and that is just where Examiner.com is the problem, that is where it becomes uncontrollable. If you follow discussions, I have explicitly denied a blacklisting request recently where there was some abuse (IMHO, controllable abuse), but where the site is unreliable. Examiner.com is also unreliable, but with the pay-per-view incentive spamming of this site becomes quickly uncontrollable. It is easy to get an established account here, where there is no stop to pull money out of Wikipedia's linking .. and blacklisting all specific cases also has no end, spammers can just change the url of their document and there we go again (that is exactly why redirect sites are blanket blacklisted on meta .. ). Whitelisting (and blacklisting/de-blacklisting) remains a problem. Not many admins want to go there, it is a select few that have to handle it. And it does not change. It is roughly (the admins) Stifle/Hu12/A. B./JzG/me (and maybe a couple more). Questions on WP:AN or WP:AN/I for more help are met with silence (and why, quite correctly JzG said some time ago something along the lines of 'yes, come and help, it is a nice way to get trolled mercilessly'). I'd really like to have more help there, then it would be easier to have admins who were not involved in the blacklisting review the de-blacklisting or whitelisting, but the manpower is scarce. Examiner.com is not the worst, indeed. And at least there is some control. Associated Content, Hulu are worse, indeed. However, if I recall correctly, examiner.com did deliberately try to confuse themselves with other sites with the name 'examiner' in them, which are reliable sources. And for examiner, there is a lot of crap there, and then the rest contains a lot of scraped info, and some of what is left is then useable here as a source. We need more manpower on the whitelist, but this should really be handled on the whitelist, quick, not too much difficulty, though requesters should keep in mind that the info they want to use is reasonably reliable and not easy to replace with something better .. keep the workload low. Until now, after quite some whitelisting requests, there are not many examiner.com links whitelisted. It is not that much. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Beetstra in italics. Abd responses are signed individually so that responses may also be kept focused on individual points.

I know the problems with the software and the blacklist. It is unclear what is blocked and why. There are also voices (and I would be grateful for that as well), that the blacklist had some logging facility which shows if editors attempt to spam/use blacklisted sites.

Yes, it could be useful. But remember, more information available means more work to analyze it. The key to these issues is distribution of labor, and the dangerous thing, for several reasons, is concentration of responsibility and power into a few unsupervised hands. In looking at what happened with examiner.com, it leaps out at me, the resentment created by the exercise of administrative editorial control by an individual admin making a content decision. I'll address the blacklisting arguments below, but the arguments about spamming don't apply to whitelisting requests, at least not nearly as cleanly. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The blacklisting request indeed indeed starts of with 'it is not reliable anyway', though Hu12 does hint to the rest, it is a pay-per-view site, self published, no editorial oversight. That pay-per-view is thé significant problem here. The man-in-the-street can earn money with this site, one gets an account, scrapes info or writes rubbish, links to it from Wikipedia, and for any fool that follows the link you get money. The spam incentive on examiner.com is huge. And that proved quickly after blacklisting, where an editor requested de-listing (or whitelisting, I can't remember), which was denied with 'this is not a reliable piece of information, are you not here to make money?', to which the requester replied 'Off course I am here to make money, would you not?'. It pays to spam, Abd, and that is just where Examiner.com is the problem, that is where it becomes uncontrollable.

I looked for that request, didn't find it so far. But that statement means nothing. It could have been a troll, a straw man. Or it could have been real. And most professional writers make money for writing, that's why they are called "professional." Most reliable sources are written by professionals. There are several points here.

• Blacklisting stated procedure and original intention was that the abuse was widespread and not controllable by other means. You did set up a bot that could handle some cases short of blacklisting. A few bad accounts should not justify long-term blacklisting, but you know that it routinely does, and the reason is given, "How do we know that spamming won't start up again?" Much of the argument for blacklisting depends on an assumption that there will be too little labor for review, but what this really points to is a need to involve more of the community as well as to set up procedures that are maximally efficient. If you recall, I've suggested that *temporary* blacklisting become *easier*, not harder. If there is a torrent of spam coming in pointing to a site, temporary blacklisting would be part of a response, very fast. With simple procedures for removing the blacklisting. Bots can assist. For example, when a site is not blacklisted, but is (as examiner.com is) a possible spam target, a bot could watch for links from this, possibly do some analysis, and report. The bot control files would require an admin, obviously, but the general community could support with analysis, and with appeal procedure.
• That a site might be spammed, for the reasons stated, doesn't mean that it *will be* spammed, and it might be possible to negotiate with a site. I'm sure examiner.com would not want the site blacklisted, perhaps they'd set rules for their writers. Perhaps they'd exclude links from Wikipedia from what's paid for, or restrict them to special conditions. There is still the RS problem, but I find the issue interesting, it raises broader questions. (For starters, I'd want to see that any "examiner" disclose that; I notice that a prior alleged spammer did exactly that. And was dinged for it. Note that an examiner is probably a subject expert, relatively speaking. The COI rules should apply, which would allow Talk suggestions but not contentious article editing. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Point is, for examiner.com, you don't need to be a professional. The man in the street (except for one minor hurdle) can write documents there, which can range from good researched info to total crap (there is no editorial oversight), link the documents and earn money. This is not about professionals earning money from what they write (and you know how the COI guideline states that), this is about anyone making money with what they write.

This is also not about 'negotiate with the site', this is not only the site owners (if even, one of the spammers may be) spamming the site, this is the man in the street creating a document there and spamming it.

And you are taking WP:AGF to a new level, if an editor is saying "of course I want to link to it to make money, don't you" as being a straw-man/troll like remark.

I don't think it my obligation to link to all discussions, the initial discussion says enough, Hu12 shows the different reasons why, and even while they (or the other 2 editors) did not show active spamming, your remark linking to the ArbCom decision suggests that these three editors (all three admins?) blacklisted solely for that reason. If you would have omitted that link to ArbCom, and not have suggested that this was blacklisted solely on non-reliability reasons, then I would not have come here, you would have gotten a normal 'decline' on the spam-blacklist. But that suggestion of you, linking to ArbCom, suggest that you assume that the three editors blacklisted solely on non-reliability reasons .. I am here, strongly, giving you the advice to avoid all such suggestions, unless you have proof (and that you did not find proof or did not see proof does not mean that it is not there). And to remind you, see WP:AGF and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG#Abd_advised (occasionally, that is in the same arbitration). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If you follow discussions, I have explicitly denied a blacklisting request recently where there was some abuse (IMHO, controllable abuse), but where the site is unreliable. Examiner.com is also unreliable, but with the pay-per-view incentive spamming of this site becomes quickly uncontrollable. It is easy to get an established account here, where there is no stop to pull money out of Wikipedia's linking .. and blacklisting all specific cases also has no end, spammers can just change the url of their document and there we go again (that is exactly why redirect sites are blanket blacklisted on meta .. ).

The cart is, a bit, dragging the horse. The goal of the project is content meeting policy. Whether someone gets paid for creating that content or not is secondary. As you know, an examiner.com page might be usable, they exist. How and where is the decision to be made? While the general rule, at this point, would seem to be that examiner.com pages don't meet RS, there are exceptions. Are admins to make all the decisions? That's highly inefficient, concentrating content decisions into the hands of the few admins who work on spam. Blacklisting makes it easier for these admins (and for the spam patrollers), but makes it harder for the content workers. That's backwards. I hope you understand, Beetstra, that my goal is to support all the volunteers, not to favor one set over another. We got involved when I saw an abusive blacklisting, and it was extraordinarily difficult to get that reversed, as you know, and, in fact, the site is still globally blacklisted, and only page-whitelisted here, which means that every usage had to be whitelisted. There would have been many more, I can assure you, if not for my topic ban. Content is still being restricted, effectively, through the blacklist. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

People are not paid to create the content on examiner.com, people create content on examiner.com, and are paid when others follow their link (you, reading that document on examiner.com what you wanted to link earned someone money!). Me writing an article in Nature earns me money (indirectly), but I do not get paid whenever anyone reads the article! You are the one interpreting my remark the wrong way around. You did not understand the argument 'It is easy to get an established account here, where there is no stop to pull money out of Wikipedia's linking' .. if you create a document there, but make sure no-one reads it, you don't earn money .. examiner.com does not give you money to store your data there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Whitelisting (and blacklisting/de-blacklisting) remains a problem. Not many admins want to go there, it is a select few that have to handle it. And it does not change. It is roughly (the admins) Stifle/Hu12/A. B./JzG/me (and maybe a couple more). Questions on WP:AN or WP:AN/I for more help are met with silence (and why, quite correctly JzG said some time ago something along the lines of 'yes, come and help, it is a nice way to get trolled mercilessly'). I'd really like to have more help there, then it would be easier to have admins who were not involved in the blacklisting review the de-blacklisting or whitelisting, but the manpower is scarce.

JzG is no longer an admin, of course, but I see that he's still working on the issues. However, the work of the blacklist/whitelist actually doesn't require admin tools, much, most of the work is in analysis. Actual additions/removals from the lists can be done by any admin, but it's better if they are done by one with experience, because of the damage from some bad regex, as we've seen. I made previous suggestions, but I'll restate it here. We have the opportunity to fix this, Beetstra, and pretty efficiently. If you and I can agree, my guess is that we can bring the community along. I'm roughly representing the more diffuse and uninvolved community, and you can see that this community, particularly the informed part that knows, long-term, wikitheory, is uncomfortable with blacklisting for content control. But we also recognize the problems of spamming. Let's see what we can come up with that might satisfy both sets of concerns!

• Develop whitelisting procedure that is almost automatic approval, when the request is from a registered editor. Procedure might require that editor to declare any COI, and it may require other steps that would be easy, but which would militate against abuse. The whitelist request page would be semiprotected, so only autoconfirmed editors may edit it. An IP or new editor request page would be attached, where IP editors may make requests, and this page would be monitored by volunteers, not admins, who would transfer any requests to the main whitelisting page that they approve, leaving the rest to expire into archive. An IP editor can, of course, make a request for support on the Talk page of any editor. Some Talk pages are semipro'd.... mine often has been, and I have an IP talk page set up for that.... Whitelisting should be fast for an autoconfirmed editor. As to whitelisting wanted by an IP, that might be more difficult, for obvious reasons, but a path should exist that doesn't result in editors shouting "spammer!" at the IP. Frivolous IP requests would simply be ignored. That's why they should be on a separate page. Abusive autoconfirmed editor requests would result in warnings and possibly blocks. That makes them expensive for the spammer. COI editors aren't spammers, as such, but should be handled evenly. There is no harm if COI is acknowledged and behavior is within guidelines. We expect COI editors to have a POV and "push" it.
• Set up blacklist expiration procedures. A permanent blacklisting should require total inappropriateness of *any* linking to the site from Wikipedia. Blacklisting due to spam torrent should be temporary, with step-by-step delisting being routine. That delisting can be and probably should be accompanied by bot monitoring. It's possible that de-escalation of blacklisting would require an editorial request, but that, again, should be almost routine. If there are intermediate steps between blacklisting and no control, it makes the decisions easier, which means that they don't require deep discussion. (The same applies in escalation: warning of editors, addition to monitoring bot control pages, reversion bots, etc.) An admin bot might have a control list that sets expiration date and automates other response -- such as adding regex to a monitoring bot control page when it expires a blacklisting. (So the default when this starts up would be no-expiration, expiration date would apply to new blacklistings as appropriate.)
• Increase awareness that the blacklist is not to be used for content control, per se. That has clearly not penetrated the consciousness of those working on the blacklist.

Still, help is minimal. More would be appreciated. But a) it is quite some work (you see that you need to be up to date, you miss crucial points here), b) it is not easy (the bar does not need to be high for whitelisting, but it should not be completely gone) (again, you need to know what is going on, why things get blacklisted), and c) it is a good recipe to get trolled (or to get into these endless discussions ..).

Whitelisting and de-blacklisting needs to be researched, evaluated, controlled.

Expiry: no! People spam to get money, we 'tried' that (well, it was massive sock-spamming which was stopped with blacklisting, and after half a year an admin removed it without discussion which took only a couple of days for the socks to re-appear and to continue), consensus to add and consensus to remove, that is the way. And keep monitoring. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com is not the worst, indeed. And at least there is some control. Associated Content, Hulu are worse, indeed. However, if I recall correctly, examiner.com did deliberately try to confuse themselves with other sites with the name 'examiner' in them, which are reliable sources. And for examiner, there is a lot of crap there, and then the rest contains a lot of scraped info, and some of what is left is then useable here as a source. We need more manpower on the whitelist, but this should really be handled on the whitelist, quick, not too much difficulty, though requesters should keep in mind that the info they want to use is reasonably reliable and not easy to replace with something better .. keep the workload low. Until now, after quite some whitelisting requests, there are not many examiner.com links whitelisted. It is not that much.

This is the problem, Beetstra. You and others are making content decisions when you decide to whitelist or not. Technically, it would seem you are not, since you can whitelist and the content still gets rejected. But when you refuse to whitelist based on your judgment of the appropriateness, you are making a content decision. A single link, even if inappropriate, is not spam. Requiring some review of links is one thing, some special process whereby, for example, the editor becomes aware that examiner.com is not the San Francisco Examiner, but requiring that an editor prove usability in an article before being able to assert the edit is another. (However, requiring that a Talk page discussion be opened as a condition for whitelisting might well be appropriate. The point would be to shift content decisions to article talk pages.)

• No, I am not, if I am declining a whitelist it is an editorial decision, I am one of the parties in the discussion of the appropriateness. And it would, again, be good to have more people there. So the discussions get wider. That we are making content decisions on that discussion, I'd like to see an RfC on that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As to examiner.com, something that I didn't expect is fascinating me. The content I've seen, looking through the requests, is quite good, considered on its own. I think that editors want to use these links because they read them as good writing, well-researched and/or informed. (And they also, perhaps, are confused by "examiner." I sense that the name caused me to notch up, a little, my opinion about the importance of the source I wanted to cite in Talk, even though I didn't actually assume it was the SF Examiner) Is it possible that the pay-per-view model is encouraging good content? Would that be surprising? Indeed, consider ordinary RS, newspapers where they have become, essentially, web sites. They have editorial review, still, so they are RS. But what drives them? Page views. That's where their money comes from. And out of that, they pay writers. Do they directly pay writers by page view? Perhaps not, but I bet that a writer who generates more page views is very likely to be paid more. Definitely, there is a problem using examiner.com content, because we may have no way of knowing if a particular article has been reviewed or error-corrected. But the paradox: the content seems generally better than what I see in ordinary newspaper RS. I'm not suggesting any immediate response, though one approach does seem possible: external links. External links need not be reliable source, but should be considered by editorial consensus to be useful to readers. And examiner.com pages might more frequently be usable as external links, for some articles, than as source for fact in the article.

Well, there certainly is good content, as I said. And that is what is requested for whitelisting. But good content can also be good scraped content .. all of it will be there.

Does the pay-per-view also make it a good site .. yes and no. If you are 'smart' you know that if you write a good piece, and get it linked, you will earn more money. On the other hand, if you write a crappy piece and link it wherever you can you also earn money. I think this knife cuts both ways. And that is where whitelisting is coming in. Could use more manpower there, who could examine in whether the content is good, not replaceable, &c. &c., but I said that already.

You name here SF examiner, IIRC with examiner.com, they do try, deliberately, to confuse themselves with that, but you'd have to ask Hu12 for details on that, and that was one of the factors that came up in the blacklisting, or shortly after. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

From my understanding of a sensible business plan for examiner.com, they would want their content to be as high-quality as possible. Links alone are not enough, they merely open the door. If readers become disgusted at what they see when they follow the links, they will stop following them, or if they do, they will immediately dump the page. So the examiner has to pay the writer, the advertiser doesn't pay because those links don't get followed (if that's the payment scheme), and the reputation of examiner.com gets trashed. Not a stable business model. But also not our problem. My point is that every article I'd seen was quite good. "Scraped"? Well, intelligently scraped, perhaps. Isn't that what Wikipedia is supposed to be?

Let's not get diverted from the purpose here: the encyclopedia. And, immediately, whitelisting is indeed the most immediate available tool, and to work, it must get more efficient. Bot reversion is also a possibility, and, provided I'm not blocked, always a risk, I'd be willing to regularly assist with either. (I.e., follow up with registered editors if fed reports.) And I would attempt to solicit assistance. See below. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Mwaagh, I could also see as a viable business plan: make sure as many as possible make documents and let them link it wherever they can, for every click to my server I get 75% and I give 25% to my user. Whatever content, I don't care. You know there will be good stuff, and most people will not check beforehand where a document is. Also, if it gets a high google ranking, people are eager to follow. So I am not sure if that your business idea is working (though, one site that uses your suggestion, with training of people that publish and checking of them, is actually not blacklisted .. which one was it again..). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

We should well note: Examiner.com articles, at least the ones I've seen, tend to be better than equivalent Wikipedia articles, as far as writing quality is concerned, my overall judgment. (But it's a biased sample, I've only seen articles that someone wanted to cite, already.) More reliable? I don't know, but Wikipedia articles, overall, are not terribly reliable, there is way too much uncontrolled flux. And the writing quality can be truly awful, articles can easily become indiscriminate piles of verifiable facts, badly organized. When are Wikipedia articles as good or better? What I've seen, when they were written by a single editor, relatively expert in the subject, who is also a good writer, and who poured loving attention into the article. PHG, as an example. And he's been in lots of trouble. Great articles, though! --Abd (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is all there, and blanket blacklisting indeed keeps that out as well. The solution is easy, get an easier and quicker system for whitelisting (not one without any scrutiny, but still), but that requires manpower, and I know why they are not coming .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If I can expect your cooperation, Dirk, I would start to consider how to set up whitelisting procedure to be both safe and efficient. The difference between that and the present system might be quite small.

Most editors, as you know, have little clue about what goes on with blacklisting/whitelisting. My experience is unusual. I recognize the need for the blacklist, I just don't want the tail to wag the dog. You, on the other hand, have been the most flexible, in my experience, of the blacklist-active administrators. Well, A.B. was also pretty flexible. It's possible that if some of the more contentious work is separated out from active blacklist maintenance, it could make it easier to find blacklist administrative help. If there are editor-supported processes that reduce administrative work to implementing a reasonable consensus, with efficient procedures for review, the administrative labor might be reduced. When decisions can be easily reversed, it isn't so important that they be right the first time.

I do know an admin who was involved with antispammer work. He wrote, to me, that it was damaging to his attitude, he started to see a spammer under every edit. Long-term involvement is needed for expertise to be brought to bear, that's what you often do. But it's important for such a long-term administrator to be increasingly detached, or else burnout can come quickly. Sane administrators never lose. They act, according to their best understanding, and then let the community make ultimate decisions. They take none of it personally, and they are not attached to outcome. To me, Dirk, the issue is always the system. Good systems make quick and accurate work, possibly with one or two easy iterations. Poor systems waste huge amounts of labor with indecisive and contentious results. Thanks for your comments and support. --Abd (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If the procedure is quick and safe, I am fine with it. E.g. the examiner link that I whitelisted this morning was a simple and clear case, not too much doubt. The other one (where you referred to) is less clear cut, though I now know the real link, I am still not sure if that information should be included, I am waiting for more input on that (in a way, awaiting consensus to be formed).

It is a nice one, is an admin who does not whitelist a link making a content decision. In other words, if there is a, reasonable, request for de-blacklisting or whitelisting, are all admins then abusing their tools if they are not adding the link to the whitelist, or only the ones which actually decline? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Only the ones who actually decline, or none at all. Depends on the nature of the decline. The primary abuse would be a deficiency in the system, not in individual administrators. I.e., the system may abusive, and it's a collective responsibility, not an individual one; for an individual to be held responsible for a collective failure is tricky. It can happen when the individual clearly takes responsibility for it and asserts it and shows preference for it. The cause of an abusive system may be, as an example, shortage of labor. I'm not about blaming individuals, Dirk, at least not primarily. But it's complicated. The shortage of labor could, as an example, result from "ownership" of the process by the overworked few. Happens all the time! --Abd (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. It was just a funny thought, and a nice ArbCom 'the editors against all non-responsive admins' .. but indeed, it is just a lack of people doing the work, which 'forces' the selected few to do the work, with as a result that they decline 'maybe not problematic cases', or ignore them if they 'maybe are problematic' and leave them to others. I would be careful with the thought 'if you decline a request, you make a content decision', that is likely to send even more admins away from the blacklist. But it annoys the few which go to the trouble of asking for de-listing/whitelisting and waiting. The bottom line is, we need more manpower there, which is repeatedly asked for on AN / AN/I, but it does not really come. It indeed gives then a feeling of WP:OWN for those who observe the process. And mistakes are made, which are then made by the selected few, which then accumulates further. But now, where really to get the manpower. Not that your help is not welcome, but you alone is not enough .. preferably I would like to see 2-3 editors comment on the not-too obvious cases (the obvious ones can be done by one). But often they just end up in diatribes between a requester and an admin who is not sure (see the examiner.com case on which I commented and where I was not sure .. I'd like to hear more independent views there). On to Wikipedia:WikiProject white and blacklist requests? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Beetstra. You are right. A sign that an administrator is too involved is that the admin gets entangled in arguments. Generally, as you know, content decisions are not to be made with admin tools. An admin protecting a page because of revert warring should not review the content and perhaps change it, hence protection is often of the Wrong Version. But the purpose is to require consensus to form. Hence if an admin edits the protected version based on some snap judgment about content, except for emergencies (like BLP violation), without waiting for consensus to form, the admin is violating policy. Whitelist decisions typically require a specific content proposal. And by deciding to accept this usage or not, the admin is making a decision that should really be made at the article. Hence my view is that getting specific page whitelisting should be relatively easy, with minimal and efficient process. How minimal is an open question. Should the editor obtain agreement at the article talk page? However, to obtain that agreement, the editor will have to link to the page! They can do it, those who know how, but it's a nuisance. So I'd suggest setting up procedures that allow autoconfirmed editors to get quick whitelisting, with perhaps some review process that might remove these whitelistings if no use follows within a certain period. The exact decisions would depend on the nature of the blacklisting/whitelisting. And then a process to allow IP editors to request whitelisting, that insulates admins from these requests. I'd want to see a whitelisting be approved by at least one non-SPA. The approval should not be any kind of evidence that the link is actually usable. That's a content decision, which should be made at the article according to the specific needs of the article and those who edit it. And all this should make it easier for blacklist admins, not harder. You would look at a whitelisting request, see the confirmation, and close it with no argument at all, just an action. Easily automated, in fact, you simply make the conclusion based on what you see, Done or Not Done.

The IP request page would be entirely handled by non-admins (though, of course, admins wouldn't lose privileges there. A non-admin would close with Recommended or Not Recommended. Generally, not recommended closes would not be made immediately, and, in fact, not recommended is the default, the request may pass into an archive without action after some definite period with no activity, standard archiving bot. But the path is open for IP editors to make the request, and they should not be punished for it, generally. However, if an IP editor makes repeated tendentious requests, that's another story.... With proper process, it would be clear that the IP editor would be opposing the community, not the blacklist administrators. That's a general principle of good administration, depersonalization. Personalization is a hazard when a very small number of admins make all the decisions.

I'm quite willing to take this on, to get independent whitelist process going, and I believe that I can recruit some other editors. With a handful of editors, and decent process guidelines, this should actually be quite easy, though, in my view, the project is beginning to suffer from labor shortages all over, ArbComm clerking has been awful lately, as an example. But that generally is considered to require admin tools. So what should be discussed is the whitelisting procedure. I would presume that this would apply to the present MediaWiki talk:Spam whitelist. I would create a talk subpage, /IP, and that would have its own guideline, and I'd suggest that the main whitelist page be semiprotected, permanently. I would watch the talk subpage regularly, making sure that IP editors have legitimate access, I'd personally transfer any request to the whitelist talk page that I'd be willing to support. If an IP editor couldn't get my support, or that of any other editor, and the request expires into the archive, it means that it was hopeless in the first place and there was no reason to even invite admins to comment. Waste of their valuable time.

Even if this works badly, if some spam gets through, it's relatively harmless. It simply allows a single whitelisting, which cannot become spam, the process would be too inefficient for spammers, and the request itself will create watching of the link, so that anyone concerned (and I'll be concerned if I've approved a listing!) can see that actual usage is reasonable.

I'll make a proposal at the most appropriate place for this to be discussed, but I'd want to discuss a draft with you first. I'd like to be in full agreement, if possible, for if we have that, it's highly likely to happen with minimal fuss. If I just do it myself, it can be predicted that there will be opposition merely because it was me proposing it. You know how that goes.... --Abd (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate process for it. Just a matter of getting more people involved and commenting / asking questions. Some cases are no simply left stale, while many non-admins can just help there (and I would say, especially for the whitelisting requests). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think there should be a separate page for IP requests, but that can be put off. If we make whitelisting almost automatic for registered editors (and we look at those accounts for signs of SPA spamming, I certainly will), which means we avoid making actual content decisions, then it's just a matter of involving more people in considering whitelisting requests, and developing some clearer guidelines. Basically, what the non-admins would do is to "close" a request with a recommendation. Admins watching the page would develop trust in certain non-admin volunteers. A request closed with no recommended action would be simply left alone, no admin action required (and thus no danger of conflict over a claim of using the blacklist for content control, that heat would be taken by the non-admin, where the issue of tool abuse doesn't exist.) A request closed with a recommendation of whitelisting would be acted upon by any admin willing to do it. Again, if nothing is done, there is no particular onus upon any admin, but a non-admin could go to AN for assistance, I did that once, and it worked. Basically, if this works, Beetstra, your job gets a bit easier. And we can get much faster answers to people making requests. If there come to be too many new account/IP requests, then we can semiprotect the page and set up an IP request page to handle that possibility. If people want the privilege of expedited request for whitelisting, they can register an account! That's a very minor privilege compared with being able to actually create a page.

Note something else. Admins can still comment on requests. The difference would be that they would, in the use of tools, only be supporting broader consensus, not using their tools for their own opinions. If they give their opinion, they don't "close." They allow someone else to decide. That's the slippery slope that trapped one admin. ArbComm decided that the blacklist wasn't to be used for making content decisions. Because blacklisting involves a balance, sometimes, content is not completely irrelevant, but the blacklist, unrestrained, is far too blunt an instrument, except a few who hold the minority position: very strict control of what is cited and linked. The majority position is to allow editors at each article to make decisions, provided that these don't offend the larger community.

I didn't intend to get into the specific blacklisting of examiner.com. Specifics aren't my point, they are just examples. Examples are important, but are never the whole story. Thanks. I'll show up at the whitelist page within a few days and start working. I'd like to see it be, at least on days when I'm active, one day maximum for a response to a whitelisting request. You'll tell me how I'm doing, I presume... I'm not on a track to become an admin, but taking on tasks like this could be good training, and I might solicit some help on that basis. --Abd (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

¡Buen provecho! ¡Buen apetito!

Estancia Churrascaria has given you a salmon burrito with bell peppers, red onion, eggs, horseradish, and a mustard cream sauce spiced with cayenne, tarragon, monterey jack cheese and paprika, with guacamole on the side! Salmon burritos satisfy wikihunger, giving you the wikistrength you need to keep body and wikisoul together, and they induce less wikiflatulence than bean burritos. Be assured that this is the highest quality seafood available on the eastern seaboard, not just your ordinary trout.

Estancia Churrascaria le ha dado un es:salmón es:burrito con es:pimientos, es:cebolla roja, es:huevos, es:rábanos, y una crema mostaza salsa condimentada con es:cayenne, es:estragón, es:queso monterrey jack y es:paprika, con es:guacamole del lado! Salmón burritos satisfacer wiki-hambre, dándole la wikistrength necesita conservar cuerpo y wiki-alma juntos, y inducen menos wikiflatulence de burritos de frijoles. Se aseguró que esta es la mayor calidad mariscos disponibles en la costa oriental, no sólo su ordinaria trucha.

Mentorship

Mentorship assistance request from Tenmei

Abd -- I hope this enquiry will serve as a tipping point which leads towards something constructive, non-conroversial, and helpful. A. As it happens, both you and I are subjects of threads at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. I am unfamiliar with the nature of the disputes in which you have been involved; however, it is clear that you write with facility. I do not. B. In order to improve my writing, I have located a group of mentors. Some are ArbCom-approved "public mentors", as more fully described at WP:Mentorship. Also included are "non-public mentors"", as more fully described at Mentorship. C. Would you consider joining my mentors as an unofficial advisor who scrupulously avoids anything to do with controversy or disputes? D. I am not seeking your help in terms of what I try to express in writing. Rather, I am seeking you help in improving how I write. My goal is to avoid WP:TLDR. In this narrowly-defined area, you may be able to make a significant contribution. The question becomes, are you willing? Is this something you can do without it turning into a time sink? E. A current topic needing resolution is something to do with organizing? or structural planning? F. The following is a draft effort to use graphics as a tool in crafting a non-verbose response to Carcharoth's diffs here and here. G. Please help me improve this with constructive criticism. I plan to post the following in an ArbCom thread. Can it be made clearer? shorter? better? If you think it might help, please feel free to making a thoughtful comment at active ArbCom thread. If not, I will understand of course. Arbitrator views and discussion -- Carcharoth's diffs Note: The text highlighted in beige is already posted in the thread. Arbitrator views and discussion I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC) This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC) GOOD — yes, of course "...it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this"Carcharoth NO -- it is unreasonable to pose ill-defined hypotheticals. Unreasonable to expect anyone to formulate crisp analysis or "answers" given that parameters of prospective mentoring issues are non-specific. The flexible role of mentors exists to address unforeseen problematic circumstances which can only happen as the future unfolds. Establishing tentative framework of organization and plan for mentoring task force is accomplished; but it was and continues to be a time sink in relation to primary mentoring objectives, e.g., addressing express WP:TLDR problems. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) WRONG "...there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong."Carcharoth NO -- No one can predict how this is going to work. The only thing to be done is to see how the teamwork relationships evolve across coming weeks and months. NO -- this is already a time sink with no observable rewards/outcomes, no difference in non-contextualized speculations, no way to distinguish "right" or "wrong", and no apparent linkages with •cohort of allegations in record •principles adduced in record •findings-of-fact adduced in record •remedies adduced in record •record of ArbCom uninvolved inaction. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) DISCONNECT? or DISJUNCTION? Further speculative planning is unproductive. Conventions of law of diminishing returns inform prudent decision to terminate pre-planning. The exercise is nothing other than a discouraging time sink. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak" Carcharoth NO -- Frustration? Frustration of purpose? I have now waited for NINE MONTHS for responses to questions about what happened in the ArbCom case. •Sept 09, waiting 3 months -- Carcharoth e-mail postpones questions with delay •Dec 09, waiting 6 months -- complaint-driven ArbCom adopts to conclusory allegations without scrutiny or discussion, ArbCom requires delay until mentors can be located •Mar 10, waiting 9 months -- ArbCom exacerbates time sink with delay NO -- Frustration = Aggravation? Making things worse? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR in what way? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) "...then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly."Carcharoth NO -- the notion that ArbCom has anything to do with "setting something up" is an illustration of The Emperors New Clothes which entails adverse consequences of pointless delay. NO -- collapse or failure has little or nothing to do with ArbCom except •avoiding time sink of parsing theories and hypotheticals •ensuring that volunteer mentors receive ArbCom's support and encouragement and thanks in addition to mine •determining parameters for decision-making which leads to ending involuntary mentorship. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Involuntary mentorship is defined as punitive. •NINE MONTHS of punishment for what? teaches constructive lessons in what way? •THREE MONTHS blocked editing for what? expands comprehension or understanding in what manner? And this helps to mitigate WP:TLDR as predictable sequelae from what methods? Summarizing this record: Escalating alphabeticals, catchwords, catch phrases, etc. have overwhelmed coherent discussion with references to policy acronyms and loaded language. My seriatim responses were derided as WP:TLDR ... and delay muddied an already complicated array of facts, factoids and factors. --Tenmei (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Hypotheticals In theory, it is not unreasonable to ask hypothetical questions; but in practice, the attempt can easily devolve into a time sink. Illustrating the point with a timely issue: Is there a constructive value in examining failures attributable to ArbCom — serial incidents in which ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory? Can you suggest a better way to solicit your intermittent help in a specific contexts? I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC) (in response to what is outside collapse, Tenmei wrote:) I look optimistically towards a less troubled future. I anticipate a time when you and I both are able to turn attention to other things. In a spirit of empathy and hope, may I remind you of something you already know — This too shall pass? --Tenmei (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Indeed. Too soon, in fact, or, more accurately, so quickly. --Abd (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm collapsing this because I'm too busy at the moment to respond, and there is a lot going on and I need to keep my Talk page relatively clear. I'll return to it as soon as I can. But, briefly, my formal assistance would not necessarily be helpful to you, and anything that I support tends to attract a lot of automatic opposition, at the moment. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

this looks like a violation of your ban

It's OK that you comment on The Ghost RfC. But then you went and you made a revert to the article. This looks like you are inserting yourself in the middle of an existing dispute, and you are banned from doing that. Indeed, it looks like you are trying to be the arbiter of how much consensus that text needs to have in order to be in the lead. Please stop that. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the first time that this ban has been interpreted to prohibit me from making edits to articles. You acknowledge that I'm allowed to comment in polls, and you seem to interpret the RfCs as polls. I agree, and that's why I commented. However, while my edit may have an application to a dispute taking place on the article talk page and at WP:NPOV, my argument for removal was not derived from that discussion, it was based on a plain application of standards for ledes, and it was independent from the dispute, which has mostly been about sourcing standards. It might be noticed that I did not remove text from the body of the article itself, so my removal did not in itself take a position on the issue that has generated so much heat. I could say a great deal more but won't because it would, in fact, be about a factional battle, a "dispute." And that would include wondering why, you, Enric, end up so much concerned about this, and Verbal, who reverted my edit as a ban violation. I'll do all of that off-wiki. Enjoy.

Meanwhile, if any neutral admin wishes to clarify how the ban prevents me from editing articles, as a kind of clear warning so that I can avoid repeating an offense, I will respect the interpretation pending review. As Enric Naval was highly involved in the RfAr which resulted in my "MYOB" ban, he was literally a party, self-named as such, I can't take his warning here as being adequate to establish a violation.

Alternatively, any admin (neutral or not) may warn me that he or she would block me if the offense was repeated, but without the clarification, it won't be helpful, and a block warning like that from an admin involved in dispute with me would violate recusal policy as much as a block. Helpful comments, though, are welcome from anyone, involved or not. --Abd (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Abd-William_M._Connolley_.28Abd.27s_restriction.29. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Enric. --Abd (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have made an AE request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Abd. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside of non-contentious cleanup and facilitation for existing projects, response to comments here, and unfinished work at RfAr, I am voluntarily ceasing editing Wikipedia, due to an interpretation of my MYOB ban that is so tight that, had I known it would be interpreted this way, I would not have returned to editing when my original site ban expired. I will only return if this extreme interpretation does not stand. An arbitrator I consider neutral has issued an opinion in the above cited RfAr/Clarification that I must take as the clarification requested above, pending a final decision.

Thanks to all those who have supported my work. It wasn't enough, but you tried, against difficulties. Thanks as well to all those who opposed my work, making issues clear, the experience has been invaluable, and I hope you and the project, as well, benefited from it in the long run. I will watch my Talk page here from time to time, and should remain reachable by email, and I am also active (and intend to remain active while permitted) on Wikipedia Review.

Please understand that I cannot comment, on-wiki, on any editorial dispute, but I can (and will) make such comment off-wiki, according to accepted norms. --Abd (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Abd_-_Community_sanction_proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Geez

Even I, as a foreigner, think that this ban is idiotic. Also, this page caused my cerebral cortex to melt into something resembling fuligo. I think you've been misunderstood and ganged up upon; and I hope this teaches you not to have faith in Wikipedia processes. Good does not necessarily prevail in the end, even if patience is employed. The reward of patience is ... a topic ban whose bounds are ever-expanding and can be interpreted to include everything? There's a way out of this dilemma, and I think we both know what it is. And no, it's not what you've decided. There's another way. I can't go into specifics, but I'll tell you this much: you're going to need to stay away from cold fusion for awhile, probably indefinitely. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment on the last topic, on-wiki, but I do have email enabled. Mmmm.... if "the way out" it's not what I decided, what would make you think that I know what it is? I'm not caught in a dilemma, by the way. I do understand, very well, what's going on, though events of late have made the dimensions of it more clear. A few other people get it, too. Some are even making comments, now, but probably not enough to make a difference about my retirement. Carcharoth even came up with some cogent remarks in the RfAr/Clarification. Again, probably too little, too late, but it is what it is. I have no crystal ball, merely a fairly good idea of what to expect and not to expect. --Abd (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, since you mention patience, the reward of patience is ... patience. --Abd (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To use a military analogy, when the usual countermeasures fail, sometimes you need to take evasive action. That's a better option than ejecting, as you are considering. Do you have enough skill to accomplish useful missions while flying under the radar and successfully dodging the enemy seekers? If so, then perhaps you have The Right Stuff to become Top Gun, despite getting shot down twice in the past. Maybe get some R&R to soothe your battle fatigue, and then choose some different missions when you're ready to fly behind enemy lines again. Maybe pick some different territory where they won't be expecting you and therefore won't have their radars calibrated to find you. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not engaged in a war, though others imagine so. I'm not interested in being top gun or personal victory, except, perhaps, for victory over myself, quite a another story. However, if we want to use military analogies, I served, in part, as a target to flush out snipers. It's worked. Watch. Takes some time, this process. I wouldn't do this in real life, where I'm not bulletproof. Or maybe I would. You never know till you are there. Meanwhile, meditate on WP:DGAF. It can help. Thanks for your kind thoughts, but, while I'm playing a game, for sure, it's not the game you think, and "winning" doesn't depend on my personal "survival" here. At all. The goal? Well, I'll only say part of it. Part of the goal is a neutral encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but that is also reliable and deep. Some people think it's impossible, including a lot of people who used to edit here. I don't think it's impossible, I just think that what is required isn't what exists yet and that same old, same old just won't cut it. --Abd (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the aircraft you've been piloting has taken some damage and looks about ready to be scrapped. Your combat record is so legendary among the enemy, that they have deployed intelligence assets to keep an eye on its whereabouts and are ready to shoot it down on sight if it crosses into the wrong territory. Therefore, you might want to consider getting a shiny new aircraft that the enemy isn't familiar with, perhaps one with civilian markings or even disguised as one of their own. Of course, when piloting your new aircraft you will want to make sure to avoid any distinctive acrobatics that would betray your true identity, and you'll want to avoid opening fire on old foes lest your real allegiance become evident. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thus speaks the voice of experience. MastCell ^Talk 17:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. But it's not the game I'm playing, and won't be. If I have to hide, I'm on the wrong side. Not hiding, for sure, makes me a ready target, and maybe Wikipedia will be better off without such a ready target. Except that I think not. I think the targets being present exposes snipers, like I said above. If anyone is looking. If not, it all doesn't matter. --Abd (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you can be on the right side, but it's simply unwise to reveal yourself openly. If you see a murder, testify against the Mafia and have Rockford Files-style large-lapel-wearing goons trying to hunt you down, will you decline witness relocation because "If I have to hide, I'm on the wrong side?" Should a submarine commander, charged with defending freedom, surface when destroyers of an enemy communist state are hunting for him, because "If I have to hide, I'm on the wrong side?" It's the same concept. You can't fight successfully wage symmetric warfare against a more powerful foe. Like it or not, that's the position you're in. Enemy snipers may expose their position by firing on you, but ultimately those snipers come back incognito, so who really wins in the final analysis? I leave you now to choose between a masochistically suicidal, Alamo-like defense of a fixed fortification, or to begin a Metal Gear-style infiltration. Farewell. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts, but I did not start seriously working with Wikipedia as a foot-soldier in the war you see, and, yes, there is a war, and Wikipedia is, indeed, a battleground. I started to try to change that, and my actual struggle is against the systemic deficiencies that turn Wikipedia into what the remaining community continues to try to deny, what is common knowledge among those who have left, and they are legion, or been banned. It's not against the individuals who happen to fill this or that role at a given time. My "foe" is not actually more powerful, but appears to be so, because the community is, as it were, a sleeping giant, with all the power, but each person who might be able to make a difference imagines himself or herself powerless against the monster, and is reduced to fighting endless battles. What's missing is what is essential, by policy. It was required but the mechanisms to create it were not established. It was assumed that it would arise naturally, but the entire history of human society shows that it takes special social technology for it, consensus, to arise across tribal divisions. It takes process. And Wikipedia is a human society, an ordinary human society, without the normal restraints of face-to-face contact, and the high bandwidth communication possible there. It's beautiful and enticing at times, when the assumptions of collegiality hold, and devastatingly ugly when that breaks down.

It's not their fault as much as it is the fault of the system, something missing from it, efficient and effective dispute resolution. Decision-making has been confused with dispute resolution.

As to the claim that the snipers will come back incognito, I'm not seeing that as a problem. I'm not being sniped at by new snipers (except maybe one, not really strongly allied with the old). It's the same old set, well-known, and declining in numbers. They are actually "losing," and the reason is that, from the beginning, I did not allow myself to struggle against broad consensus, but only against local illusion. Each one of these actions was a demonstration of how to find wide consensus (or an experiment toward that). (It's easy to overlook that what sometimes seemed to be disruptive dissent, initially, often became established consensus later.)

Wikipedia is not my life work, it's just a piece of it, and should it happen that I'm banned, which looks unlikely at the moment, I would see it as guidance to channel my efforts elsewhere. That has already happened to a large degree. This is just a wiki. Really. --Abd (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GoRight

At this point, I feel that a greater community discussion is warranted concerning GoRight's editing behavior. I have started a discussion here.[7] As a possible interested party, your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Trusilver 01:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at it. But whatever happened to user RfC? AN/I is a spectacularly inappropriate place to conduct a sober examination of an editor's behavior. I do have a question as to whether or not it would violation my sanction to comment there, and I'm generally not editing Wikipedia at this time. --Abd (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of RFC's. Well, for that matter, I'm even less of a fan of AN/I, but the administrator noticeboard tends to result in faster results and less of a circus than RFC usually becomes. I would rather not see GoRight blocked again, but I feel that is what will happen if his behavior isn't altered. I think an acceptable result would be editing sanctions to end his dealings with the editors he tends to see the most disputes with. Trusilver 01:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised you think that, Trusilver. AN/I can be swift, indeed. Swift to jump to conclusions, swift to block and ban without ever actually coming up with evidence and reasoning, and with people making comments without checking and searching for evidence. GoRight was asking you for help, with a situation where he really didn't know what to do. Did you assume that he was making it up, or that what he considered harassment wasn't? Did you assume that if he's being harassed, he must be doing something to deserve it? RfC is slow, and if it becomes a circus, nevertheless it collects evidence and arguments that can later be used for a community ban, if needed, or to address other issues. AN/I easily can spin out of control, I've seen it many times.

But short of that, GoRight is responsive to constructive criticism, I've seen it many times. The AN/I report, I predict, will become a coatrack for a certain faction which has been after GoRight for about two years to hang many accusations on. You can expect it. --Abd (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't wish for this to spill over and slap Abd. Unless there is some official acknowledgment that Abd is allowed to comment here I would prefer that he didn't. Let us not poke that hornets nest again, please. --GoRight (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Abd. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Great Repeal Bill

If you want to recreate it I won't stop you, since information still pops up on it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bucklin

You may be interested to know that there is a dispute about the Bucklin voting page ongoing. The issues are:

1. Can the term "Bucklin voting" comprehend systems which allow equal and/or skipped rankings?
2. If so, do such systems meet the IIA and Clone independence criteria?

(One possible answer to either question is that we can't say either way because we don't have relevant citations to reliable sources. In that case, we must choose what we can say.)

Your participation in the discussion might help us attain consensus.

Cheers, Homunq (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I've recycled your advice. It gave me an audible chuckle then, and still does now. Cheers, –xeno^talk 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Like a stopped clock, perhaps I occasionally get it right. That was a mixture of sarcasm, plain humor, and serious advice; I'm glad that you enjoyed it then, and had forgotten about it completely, which is often true with some of my best work, so I was quite glad, today, to see it. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As expected

As you expected, I've filed an enforcement request. You can find it at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Abd. Hipocrite (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing . Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Just in case someone might assume otherwise, the complaint and decision was an unmitigated pile of crap. But simply not worth the trouble and disruption of objecting. The block tool and bans were intended to prevent disruption, and the supposed violating edit was self-reverted, i.e., caused no disruption except for a possible technical violation, not worth even considering, required no clean-up, and would only have been an issue at all if someone had seen it in history and decided, on their own responsibility, it was worth reverting back in. In case it was not noticed, an edit self-reverted "per ban" is cooperative, not defiant. Somewhere between maybe 2006 and now, the fundamentals of WP:IAR were lost, and rule compliance became an end in itself. Not to worry, that's pretty normal, it is how organizations routinely become ossified and ultimately break. Been going on for millenia. You can go back to sleep now, this text is only an illusion, you are dreaming. --Abd (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Health shake

Estancia Churrascaria has given you a health shake containing 2 cups soymilk, 1 scoop supergreens powder, 1 tablespoon aloe vera gel, 1 tablespoon coconut oil, coral calcium powder, chocolate rice protein, natural peanut butter, and some stevia, honey and raw sugar on the side in case you want to stir it in. Health shakes help improve your vitality, wisdom, strength, intelligence, dexterity and agility so that you can prevail throughout the wikisphere. Not that you're lacking in these characteristics, but we should always be seeking to level up whenever possible. When your hit points are drained and you need something to provide quick energy while laying the foundation for a better you, there's no better way to slake your physical and mental thirsts than by quaffing a large, all-natural blended health shake. You may even want to savor it, swishing it around and "chewing" your health shake so to speak, until your stomach is practically crying out to meet the acquaintance of that wholesome goodness. If it's a little too much for you to handle, maybe try adding a piece of a banana to the mix to sweeten it a bit. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why, thanks, Steak House. I'd rather have one of those steaks, though. Too much carb in the "health shake," along with some great stuff. Make it with heavy cream, instead of soy milk, maybe that's an idea. I'd skip the honey and raw sugar, and probably use sucralose in place of the stevia, though stevia is fine. As to "prevailing," prevailing is a nuisance, one then has responsibilities. I just lost my probationary adminship at Wikiversity, not terribly unpredictable, since I blocked my mentor (who had the right to have my tools yanked at any time, that's how it works there). Few around here could understand the joy and wisdom and serious helpfulness of an action like that. He didn't. He somehow imagined that I'd forgotten that (1) he could unblock himself, and (2) he had permission from me to undo any of my actions. Of course I hadn't forgotten. But he then proceeded to violate policy right and left, apparently it was all too much for him. He was already violating policy, continuing after warning, that's why I blocked him! Too bad, his loss (and maybe Wikiversity's loss, that's up to the community, the fat lady hasn't sung the close yet), not my loss. I get to do other stuff. "Ops" are a nuisance, except it's fun to be able to read deleted stuff. I really think that privilege should be much more widely distributed, it would allow the community to better watch the watchers. Really, when we get to see what is being deleted, naturally, lots of it is pure crap, but then there are the exceptions where an admin either was careless or had an axe to grind. My mentor hid the block log entries, that went over like a lead balloon and was quickly reversed by another admin. He also deleted the warning and block notice on his Talk page, but apparently recovered enough sense to not revision-delete those. He also deleted my Request for Custodian action, the WV noticeboard, but, again, had enough sense not to revert war with my revert. The RCA was, of course, what I did as an ordinary user, not as a custodian, but I was also following what I've been writing so long about recusal policy -- in an emergency, a sysop can take just about any action that would ordinarily be prohibited, but which might be needed under IAR, provided he or she promptly refers the matter to the community.... Practice what you preach, that's also good for health.... --Abd (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, you'll always be a sysop on my wiki. There is no RfA or probationary adminship; everyone becomes a sysop after making a few edits and keeps that status unless they abuse it. In which case, they can create a new sockpuppet account and start from scratch. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Purple Star
		Spreading a little of what we all badly need... yadda yadda. Here's hoping you won't be needing that particular award ever again :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Piotrus. I'm touched. Really. --Abd (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. And yes, I think collecting that stuff is a good thing, if only to look at one's wiki-history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The situation is not as bad as it seems (or is it?)

Have some nachos.

You may notice that you have a lot more people attacking you than defending you. But it's probably a downward spiral that just keeps snowballing, like an avalanche going down a helical slide after a blizzard. There were originally some people who wanted to help you, but after you lost decisively, then potential supporters fell away, perceiving the situation as hopeless and not wanting to expend any political capital on it. (After all, if they stick their nose into it, they may come under attack too; if the numbers are on the side of those oppose you, then those same numbers could easily shift to being opposed to anyone else who butts in.) Eventually it gets to the point where passers-by may say, "That's f---ed up" but don't want to even linger for very long near such a depressing site, much less say anything. There is no political cost, though, to piling on and adding words of unkindness/condemnation to those that have already been lodged against you, so people who are thus inclined feel no inhibition to doing so. In the end, it deceptively looks like everyone, or almost everyone, hates you, but it's not the case.

The question is, does it do any good to have silent supporters? Well, theoretically it could, but only if the odds were ever to approach anything close to being even. Until then, they probably don't do very much good at all, at least directly. Ah, but what about their indirect effects? These people might help you indirectly, by voicing opinions in other cases that are closer, and thereby creating favorable precedents (and, by extension, policies and guidelines, which are theoretically descriptive, not prescriptive, but in practice are a little of both) which will help bring you closer to having a chance. It remains to be seen whether you will achieve any substantial victories before the heat death, though. Estancia Churrascaria (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Tipping point

Hi, Abd. You might like a quote I just added to my user page: (last quote in this section) (diff) You might also like the book it came from, "The Tipping Point", which is about things like how to start a successful ad campaign that spreads via word of mouth.

Re being blocked as described in a thread above: (Admitting I know nothing about the block other than what appears in that thread.) You consider a self-reverted edit to be harmless. Yet I can think of arguments, different arguments for each case, why each of these types of self-reverted edits could be considered to cause more trouble than they're worth when done by a topic-banned editor (depending on things like the relative value one places on taking up other editors' time and effort versus adding information): spelling corrections; adding sourced information to an article; adding an opinion to a discussion. I can explain if you like. You probably won't agree; but IAR doesn't guarantee that actions will follow reasons that seem convincing from your point of view. IAR is not a rule-converter that converts one rigid, inflexible set of rules into a different, universally-agreed-on, rigid inflexible set of rules. There is no guarantee that banned editors who self-revert are never blocked. IAR is up to the conscience of each editor. IAR may or may not be used less or differently these days; this block doesn't convince me of that. (I would need statistically valid information or something.) Your friend as always, ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Abd

I hope you stick with it. As I think I said before I found you an excellent mentor when I was just starting out a couple years ago. Here are a few inspiring words from Theodore Roosevelt.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey, Doc. I have these bruises here.... Any suggestions? They are just virtual bruises, psychic perhaps, caused by what have been called "toy banhammers" by some. Basically, underneath the bruises, as a kind of pain, a sense that I wasted a lot of time here, with a community that is dying, and unprepared to consider what might resuscitate it. Happens. Like the pond being choked by lily pads, that double in coverage each day, the damage isn't clearly visible to most until it's too late. However, what was learned here is of great value elsewhere. I'm not giving up, just working smarter, I hope. Watch this page! There might be some interesting stuff here. And, as always, you can email me, or PM me on Wikipedia Review. I do believe it's possible to fix Wikipedia, but it's going to take much more than me to do it. Like maybe two or three editors! (Seriously!) If there is Something To Do, I might email those who have emailed me. --Abd (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to above comment from Coppertwig

I responded to this, but self-reverted because some aspects of my response, though not, in my view, violating the intent of any ban, might possibly be so construed by someone, even though the bans have never before been interpreted so strictly. (My last block was for a self-reverted edit that, in itself, did go into territory that I'd expect a block for if not for self-reversion, and I know that self-reversion is not currently considered a defense against a charge of ban violation; however, I'm hoping that, given the nature of the edit itself, which does not mention the issues involved in the original ban, self-reversion may reduce possible disruption. I could have responded by email to this comment, but prefer to do so openly. Any editor who reviews the edit and believes that it violates a ban (I'm under two bans, please see [8]) and [9]), please leave it unreverted. Any editor in good standing may, however, revert this back in upon finding that the edit does not violate the bans, or, alternatively, that the value of the content substantially outweighs any technical violation. Alternatively, any editor may cite a diff to the edit, or a permanent link to it, here. Please do not take this elsewhere on Wikipedia unless there is strong reason. Thanks.

As with my last edit, I do not plan to discuss this further, in the near future, so if there is Arbitration Enforcement over this, I do not plan to defend, because defense simply creates more disruption. That is not the same thing as consenting to sanctions, it is, rather, nolo contendere as to my involvement, but others may choose to defend if they consider it worthwhile. That there was no defense last time is a major reason why I'm no longer editing Wikipedia except occasionally. --Abd (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Naturwissenschaften: Congratulations!! Way cool. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_amateur_radio_organizations#Redundancy_in_this_list.

Hi. I noticed your comments there from earlier this year. I have worked quite a bit on that list; reducing the amount of clubs listed to just those that have articles. Even then, the list essentially duplicates those clubs that are in Category:Amateur radio organizations and Category:International Amateur Radio Union member societies. Many of the articles may not meet the general notability guideline such as this one with only a link to the club's website.

Well, I don't know the best way to proceed, but I'm interested in what you have to say. Dawnseeker2000 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Abd!

I know you have not been given your rollback rights back. But please do not blame all of wikipedia community for this. It was a decision of only ONE administrator who used mere tools to judge whether you deserved your rights or not, regardless of your good faith. Things on wikipedia have not changed. It still serves mankind by spreading fruits of knowledge and its all thanks to contribs like yourself. Keep doing your good work. Each good-faith editor is valueable to our community from administrators to unregistered IPs. Thanks! Happy editing. Farjad0322 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

page move

You moved Academy of Fine Arts Vienna to 18th century European scholarly societies and academies/Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. I think that you wanted to do this in wikiversity. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lucky guess! Thanks. I was moving a pile of pages there, from a list of pages, some were Wikiversity pages and some Wikipedia, and, of course, I only intended to move the Wikiversity ones. Looks like someone caught it. --Abd (talk) 02:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar

I have started a thread at Possible evasion of ban by User:NYScholar, which you may be interested in. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look, but I certainly won't be able to help on-wiki, due to the ArbComm-imposed MYOB ban. NYScholar: sad case. A result of failure to adequately explore intermediate options. I'm working on this on other WMF wikis. --Abd (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I did look and I'm not seeing any problem. Yes, NYScholar was interested in Harold Pinter, but ... those were nondisruptive edits, it looks like. Is there some reason this should be pursued, that it's worth the attention of administrators at AN/I? Bans are not enforced just to enforce bans, but to protect the project. If this IP -- or the other one -- is acting disruptively, then referring to a ban can speed up enforcement, but "ban violation" itself is not a real problem. Ban violation with disruptive editing is. Revert warring? Serious POV-pushing? Misleading sources? Incivility? All that, very good grounds for filing an SSP report. Anyway, you asked me here on my Talk page, I hope it is okay that I answered. What I asked here were questions that I'd ask if I were to get involved. --Abd (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Cold fusion walls of text

As soon as your topic ban ended, you resorted to posting walls of text in this area again. I strongly suggest you cease post haste. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• I will immediately, pending discussion, cease posting anything that could be reasonably considered a "wall of text," however, I will also note, at this point, that I was not banned from such postings. Such a ban can harm content. When there is a situation where what is supported by the bulk of sources in a field is contrary to the unconsidered opinion of a majority of Wikipedia editors -- that's not normal, but it is the case at Cold fusion -- it can take very substantial and deep discussion to sufficient explore what is in the sources to correct deficiencies in the article.

• However, it is possible to manage such discussion so that it doesn't cause problems. In the real world, discussions would be moderated or facilitated when efficient discovery of consensus is needed.

• Ideally, when there is dispute at a Talk page for an article, the community of interested editors would select a neutral moderator, trusted to regulate discussion, with authority to temporarily ban participants who violate the decisions of the moderator. Any volunteers? --Abd (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Walls of text" were never defined adequately, that is why, I assume, I was not banned from posting them. I have diligently attempted to condense comments, to keep them on point, using collapse to push less relevant comments, personal notes, etc., out of the way. Whenever I use collapse, what is in collapse isn't necessary, but will be helpful to a minority of editors, perhaps. And, in fact, in no case is reading what I've put up necessary, any of it, because, on that page, I'm COI and therefore am acting as someone relatively expert in the field, to advise other editors. Nobody could ever be sanctioned or excluded from "article consensus" because they have not read my advice, unless, perhaps, they attack it without reading it! That happens, unfortunately. Usually nobody does anything about it.

I just did a study of my level of posting to Cold fusion talk. You can see this in User:Abd/Sandbox today. I began with the section on Proposed explanations, having deleted everything before that. I had made, to be sure, a few comments in the discussions above, but in no way could I be considered to have dominated those discussions, which wandered all over the place with little focus on improving the article. Those posts have (see below) been considered to violate my MYOB ban, an interpretation I did not anticipate, but which I now am bound to respect pending clarification.

Then I proceeded to remove certain classes of text:

• Talk page before removals: 127,018 bytes.
• After removing collapsed text: 92,645 bytes. Net collapsed text: 34,373 bytes.
• After removing all Abd posts: 28,796. Net Abd posts outside of collapse: 63,849.
• After removing all posts from Kirk Shanahan: 11,569. Net Kirk Shanahan: 17,227
• The 11,569 bytes remaining were posted by seven editors.

• If you look only at diffs, the whole thing will look impossibly complex. I use bolding and bullet points to organize the text to make it easy to follow, and the analysis above doesn't consider the use of small text to cover organizational remarks or sometimes dicta, brief personal comments that don't justify the high visibility of a collapse.

Yes, I contributed much more discussion to that page in that relatively brief period than any other editor. However, the page had long been full of posts wrangling over what amounted to original research, as well as self-promotion by the other COI editor (who is practically the lone remaining scientist criticizing cold fusion research, under peer review, in recent years, and he was emphasizing, in many different ways, often without disclosure, his own single recent paper, a response in what amounted to a published debate, as if this were representative of the scientific majority, which might be expected for such a COI editor, but which should be countered, or it could easily happen and probably does happen that others, not familiar with the literature, may believe it, especially if it confirms their standing preconceptions. The reliable sources in recent years are overwhelmingly contrary to his views, the ratio could be as high as fifty to one or more.

What if I'm correct about that? How would other editors come to know this? Believe me, it's not easy! You would think it would be easy, with that high a ratio, but certain editors have actively excluded from usage every reliable source on the "positive" side, on the apparent grounds that the authors are "fringe." That is a position that is directly contrary to RfAr/Fringe science, which is completely a dead letter if anyone attempting to apply it gets banned. And, indeed, that's happened plenty of times. RS doesn't depend on authors, it depends on publishers, and those publishing the reliable sources I mention are not "fringe publishers," they are mainstream, like the American Chemical Society, Oxford University Press, Springer-Verlag, Naturwissenschaften, etc.

It is well known that to counter false and misleading statements can take many, many more words than to make them. The real issue here would be whether or not my comments were focused on improving the article, or not. Continually, discussions were started that were off point, that accused me of misleading statements when what I wrote was solidly grounded and evidenced, etc., and this caused my own contributions to multiply. I can avoid some of this, but I would appreciate support and guidance.

I am proposing that a new process be pioneered here, one that could resolve a lot of similar situations. Why would we need this?

• Wikipedia is famous for abusing experts, especially if they don't become familiar with what are often arcane rules. They may assume that, of course, they may fully explain and answer questions, and explain the science or other facts behind what they are asserting. These experts don't last long! This also happens with amateur enthusiasts. And this is entirely aside from violations of behavioral guidelines like revert warring or incivility. Indeed, when an expert is faulted for writing too much, they may become uncivil! Rather, good practice is to refactor a Talk page, to condense material, perhaps putting detail in collapse. Quite a few of the discussions that spun out on the current Cold fusion talk page, if I could, I'd have entirely collapsed, they frequently wandered off the point, i.e., off discussion of actual changes to make to the article.
• We need to start resolving disputes instead of banning experts and knowledgeable editors. "POV-pushers" are usually more knowledgeable about a topic and are more highly motivated than other editors to research sources, etc. They need support and guidance, not blocks and bans, unless they are unable to cooperate with good dispute resolution process.
• Wikipedia depends on consensus to determine NPOV. There is only one objective standard for NPOV, in fact, consensus. If a minority point of view is excluded, as often happens, the consensus isn't real, it is merely -- at best! -- some kind of majority position. At worst, the uninformed beliefs of a majority of editors or adminstrators become the standard.
• It is known how to find consensus in the presence of even deeply entrenched conflict. But the necessary process has almost actively been excluded from Wikipedia. It requires that a few discuss a lot. Providing space and facilitation for this is crucial, or the apparent consensus on Wikipedia isn't real, and not only will content be, often, biased, sometimes blatantly to anyone who knows a subject, and sometimes subtly, in ways that will only be visible to those who have a certain POV. And they will be right, if their views have been arbitrarily excluded with inadequate respect.

I conclude that process facilitation is needed, that a corps of skilled editors to resolve disputes actively is required, and that this intervention should not be limited to formal mediation, which is highly inefficient.

What would work at Cold fusion would be someone like a "page moderator," who would become familiar with the issues, at least in round outlines, and who would refactor page discussion toward seeking consensus on article text. This moderator would collapse or archive off-topic discussions, and would warn editors who violate civility policy or other behavioral restrictions. The moderator would ideally be respected by most of the active editors as likely to make fair decisions. The moderator could declare short page bans when needed to interrupt abuses. (For example, if this moderator believed, being familiar with the topic and the problems, that I was "dominating discussion," the moderator could ask me to slow down or stop, to give others opportunity to respond. The goal would not be exclusion, but completion. I would have no problem with this! It's really normal in well-managed organizations.)

Otherwise, following the ad hoc normal processes, admins end up making decisions being radically uninformed about the situation. They might be right and they might be wrong, in terms of what the article actually needs. But these actions almost never function as real dispute resolution process.

I recommend and request this response by arbitrators; I may formally request it if needed. I'd like ArbComm to assign me a mentor, a neutral editor who will actually investigate my activities and advise me about them, as well as advising ArbComm and the community. At one point, Fritzpoll, both before and after being an arbitrator, volunteered to mentor me, but he was told, I'm informed, by ArbComm, that this was not allowed. I'm fairly sure that some other reputable editor (it doesn't have to be an administrator) would be willing to do this. The original MYOB ban mentioned a mentor. That ban has been so much trouble because it was truly -- I guarantee this! -- impossible to clearly interpret. That's what a mentor would have done, and, I believe, that's why the original ban allowed such "intervention" with the consent of a mentor.

Thanks for considering this. --Abd (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Hi, I note that the arbitrator Rlevse has already drawn your attention to your problematic behavior on Talk:Cold fusion, viz., your chosen method of interaction via large slabs or "walls" of text.

I also want to remind you that in the Abd-William M. Connolley ruling you're indefinitely restricted from "participating in discussion of any dispute in which [you are] not one of the originating parties, unless approved by [your] mentor(s)."

I note that you have already intervened in several existing disputes that you did not start at talk:cold fusion:

• "Neutrality issues due to omission of facts" begun by Shjacks45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• "Old claims and new data" begun by Objectivist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I note that you seem to have intervened in several other threads but I haven't checked them closely. The above which I draw to your attention are exactly what you're not supposed to be doing. Please stop. --TS 12:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That version of the ban is obsolete, Tony, the moderator thing was eliminated, even though arbitrator Fritzpoll was volunteering to be my mentor. (He'd recused from anything involving me.)

What's a "dispute?" Is any discussion a "dispute"? The MYOB ban was, in practice, almost impossible to interpret without adding in additional assumptions; in fact, this ban was a compromise, with no clear agreement behind it, as far as I could tell. If there is no clear underlying purpose, which is normally shown by looking at the problem situation that the ban addresses, the ban itself becomes a "rule" without a foundation, so any interpretation is wikilawyering. In either direction! However, that ban is still in place, and your interpretation is no more preposterous than many others that were enforced. Therefore I must comply. Note that this requires defining "dispute" in a far tighter way than may have been understood by the arbitrators consenting to it. This is how I'm taking it:

Abd may not comment in any discussion that he did not originate.

A discussion is a back-and-forth with any kind of possible disagreement being expressed, between two or more editors.

Abd may originate a discussion.

Abd may respond in a discussion wherein there is, as yet, no disagreement expressed between two editors, making it into a 'dispute'.

Abd may !vote in polls.

Note that in at least one of these "disputes," I was actually mentioned by reference, in a link to a mailing list post of mine. The interpretation above seems to me to be a vast overreach of the intended ban. However, I will respect it pending discussion.

This still is not completely nailed down, but, if some new extension of the ban is proposed, I'd appreciate, again, the courtesy of a warning, and I thank you for that courtesy here. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're disputing a straightforward interpretation of your ban. I don't agree that my interpretation is unreasonable or that it constitutes an extension. It would be in your interests to consult the arbitrators before proceeding. --TS 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Tony, I promised to respect your very strong interpretation. You think it's straightforward, I don't. But I will follow your interpretation, that's what I wrote, wasn't it? I responded on NYB talk, as you might note. Of course I'll consult the arbitrators before "proceeding," but I'm interpreting "proceeding" as continuing under the clarifications I wrote above. If those clarifications are incorrect, if they permit me something that you think is prohibited, please be explicit.

I'm allowed to disagree with your interpretation, here on my Talk page. I did. So?

I will say one more thing now: "my interests" and "the interests of Wikipedia" are not the same thing. I'm, here, pursing benefit to the project, at considerable personal expense (in time, plus I spent a lot of money on the books for the field of Cold fusion, purely to be able to understand this topic). If I were simply following my "interests," I'd not be editing this project at all. I have no opinion that, personally, I'm better off blocked or unblocked, banned or unbanned. But the project? Isn't that what is supposed to be the issue? --Abd (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding: your research has led to to understand one POV on this topic. And it's not the mainstream consensus POV. That will always bring you into direct tension with Wikipedia, as it has before. Your research is better expressed in a separate cold fusion wiki, where the conflict between the claims of proponents and their dismissal by the scientific establishment is not a problem. Guy (Help!) 14:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That conflict is not a problem here, either. Policies such as NPOV and RS allow them (in fact, require them) to peacefully co-exist in articles. Kevin Baas^talk 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, and there was a poll on this along time ago, I believe it falls under the guideline WP:FRINGE (given the caveat: "Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations."), specifically it falls under #4: Alternative theoretical formulations. Though it should be noted that the guideline explicitly states that "[such] things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia." And with the caveat that it is not really an "alternative" formulation, as it does not necessarily come into conflict or propose alternatives to existing theories, which for the most part all have to do with plasmas as opposed to solid-state matter, which, as we know, is an entirely different phase and thus has different dynamics which must be considered, not all of which are known, and in any case whose impact on nuclei are very poorly understood. so really it's more of a "new territory" i.e. "emerging science" than an "alternative" thing. (and as such, it'll presumably take a few stumbles before finding a firm footing.) in any case, by #4 with said caveat, that guideline applies as well. which, from my experience, "opponents" need to be reminded of just as much, if not more so, than "proponents". Kevin Baas^talk 14:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are sadly mistaken, JzG, as you have been for a long time. What is the attitude of experts to cold fusion? How would you know? You really should read that 2004 U.S. DoE report, the whole thing, and compare it with what is known about the 1989 report. There was a vast difference, but some language of the summarizer has been misread. In 1989, the rejection was almost unanimous, far stronger than the more conciliatory language of the summary. In 2004, one-third of the 18-member panel believed that the evidence for nuclear reactions was "convincing or somewhat convincing." And if you look closer, you can see that much of the rejection left was knee-jerk, but that, of course, is just my opinion, though well-supported by what they wrote (we have copies of their comments). What do experts believe today? How would we know? Here is how: peer-reviewed secondary sources. They abound, JzG. Have you looked at them? Here is the latest: Naturwissenschaften, Status of cold fusion (2010). For your convenience, here is the abstract:

The phenomenon called cold fusion has been studied for the last 21 years since its discovery by Profs. Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. The discovery was met with considerable skepticism, but supporting evidence has accumulated, plausible theories have been suggested, and research is continuing in at least eight countries. This paper provides a brief overview of the major discoveries and some of the attempts at an explanation. The evidence supports the claim that a nuclear reaction between deuterons to produce helium can occur in special materials without application of high energy. This reaction is found to produce clean energy at potentially useful levels without the harmful byproducts normally associated with a nuclear process. Various requirements of a model are examined.

This is what passed peer review, at the journal Einstein published in, founded in 1913, and the publisher was founded in 1842. Do you think they would risk their very considerable reputation by publishing nonsense? I'm compiling a list of sources on the topic on Wikiversity. After 2004, publication in the field started to increase, and there have been many secondary source reviews under peer review. All excluded from influencing the article, with the only real argument being that they were "fringe." It's a circular, self-maintaining POV imbalance, and you helped very much accomplish that by banning or seeking the ban of anyone with the alleged "fringe POV." At this time, "Fringe POV" is synthesis. And incorrect, unless you want to count, as the "mainstream view," all "scientists" who don't know the field and who are simply regurgitating what they were taught for twenty years.

I did not only study the pro-CF material. I bought and read the books by skeptics: Taubes, Huizenga, Park, and others. I understand the skeptical arguments, thoroughly. I can, and will, write neutral articles on them. You don't understand them. You don't have the background. You are relying on what your friend told you, when?

JzG, are you capable of admitting that you made a mistake? It's a serious question, I certainly don't know the answer. --Abd (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Abd's answer to a follow-up question should never exceed the length of his first answer

Hi Abd. Can I offer you a suggestion aimed at reducing exasperation your readers find with your verbosity? I assume that you would like to think that people read what you make the effort to write?

Your answer to a follow-up question should never exceed the length of your first answer.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the logic behind that. That seems rather arbitrary and unreasonable. People could respond with "follow up questions" that are really a bunch of misinformed and/or irrational crap. In such a case, a person is obligated, if not to correct all the factual and logical errors (which may turn out to be substantially larger than the response itself (you'd be surprised of the error density some people can consistently produce!)), at least to caution the passing reader and let the writer know they need to be more intellectually careful. And that may prove a longer response.

What I would advise, more importantly, is to be empathetic and considerate in one's tone of voice, which is exactly what you're already doing, and then being criticized for it apparently because some people don't like to read. Of course if you're too blunt you'd be accused of being an a$$hole which of course you're not. Seems to me like a completely artificial lose-lose situation. So i'd feel kind of cornered were i in your position (and that seems to be the goal).

So I guess I can say that i understand your position and I empathize. i suppose that's where being smart comes in. :-) Kevin Baas^talk 13:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and SmokeyJoe, I don't have any "exasperation" with his "verbosity". I find his eloquence, tone, and clarity rather refreshing, actually. Kevin Baas^talk 13:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The logic that motivated the suggestion is merely that ‘’sometimes’’ I have seen this: Abd says something. Someone asks a short question. Abd responds at length out-of-proportion to the question and beyond the scope of the original point. The thread progresses no further.

I disagree that "follow up questions" that are really a bunch of misinformed and/or irrational crap must be corrected with respect to all the factual and logical errors. Irrational crap should be ignored. In any case, I haven’t seen this to be an actual problem.

Neither do I have exasperation with Abd’s verbosity, but I do see signs that some do. I do agree that Abd has an eloquent, refreshing, friendly, inviting tone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, SmokeyJoe, I'll smoke some of that. Yeah, I try to be level and clear, but I also try, sometimes, to be thorough in covering a topic. Some people really don't like that, so it's always some kind of balancing act for me. Thanks for the advice, again. If you can help me snag a mentor, it could be very useful. --Abd (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you been at this for coming up to thirty years? I don't think you need a mentor to control your fingertips in ways that you already well understand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Howdy. You are mentioned here. I checked, and it appeared no one notified you yet.--Rockfang (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Not surprising. Thanks. I'll look. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The silliness of this exceeded all bounds, but I think I understand it. The admin who filed that has a history of setting up a pile of allegations, each one of which is actually misleading, knowing that many editors will not read carefully. This is my response there. If the old behavior repeats, other such claims will follow, building up an impression of a "disruptive editor." Even if there is no actual disruption. Editing my Sandbox abusively? That was just a copy of Talk:Cold fusion, the entire page as of September 18, with, then, eventually, all my comments and all those of another editor removed, to study character counts, based on what's above. So what this admin pointed to was everyone else's comments, not my "side of everything." But he's extraordinarily incautious at best. At worst, he's out to ban anyone with a POV he considers fringe, and he's accomplished it more than once. It's worth watching, he is very good at what he does. Whenever I have successfully called wider attention to his activities, he's been reprimanded. But I can't do that any more, unless, I suppose, I'm pushed into a corner. --Abd (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

For signing my guestbook. Glad to see you're doing fine as well! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know

I know how annoying it can be when you think somebody's looking over your shoulder while you edit. Although I made some comments on your return to editing in the cold fusion case a few days ago, I've withdrawn from that area of editing. I have no immediate concerns about your engagement and I think you'll continue to be an asset to the project provided you don't repeat old mistakes. --TS 18:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this comment, Tony, it's appreciated. And if I make mistakes, repeated or not, I hope my friends will help me to understand and correct them. Sometimes it's tricky to figure out what is a mistake and what is something, say, BOLD or the like, or perhaps being thorough and careful (that can take a lot of words!). Sometimes a majority of editors who show up in a place have some collective bias, etc. It can be expected to happen. But if we keep the goal in mind, and work steadily toward that goal, finding ways to cooperate, we should be able to get through the worst of it. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I've decided that I prefer editing papers for peer-reviewed journals to editing Wikipedia, which feels like slogging through thick mud, while dodging mud and worse slung by others, and I believe I prefer writing them to either of these, and I prefer actually doing the research to writing about it, all in a hierarchy of importance and fun. For those interested in what I've been up to, see Status of cold fusion (2010), convenience copy of this paper in Naturwissenschaften at lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf. I'm credited just before the bibliography.

My personal work and research, though, other than writing and studying the field of cold fusion, is reflected in my on-line store, where I'm selling materials for the attempted replication of certain recent and important experiments, published in Naturwissenschaften by the SPAWAR group, on the finding of very low levels of neutron radiation from cold fusion cells. I'm designing kits, but before kits are sold, I'll need to test them!

I'll be periodically making suggestions for the cold fusion article here, but serious work on that article is impossible under the hostile and anti-collaborative environment that prevails there at this time. --Abd (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

General sanction imposed - topic ban reimposed for 1 year on Cold Fusion articles and related pages

Pursuant to the ANI and Meta discussions, I find that you have re-engaged in the prior disruptive behavior that caused Arbcom to issue the sanction a little over a year ago.

I am enacting a general sanction as authorized by Arbcom:

Abd is topic banned for 1 additional year from today's date from Cold Fusion articles, talk pages, and related pages, interpreted broadly, under the General sanction remedy in the Abd-WmC case.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Also note, the Arbcom stated appeals process for general sanctions specified here is:

The issuing administrator.

The applicable noticeboard (either WP:AE or WP:AN where the discussion started, I think as a reasonable exception to their stated policy given the particulars here).

Arbcom itself.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll start with you, GWH. Do you prefer your Talk page or mine? I'll assume here. I'm in no rush; as I'd announced, I stopped editing except for that AN report -- where I still have a brief note to post.

But my first questions: my behavior at meta, the posting of a single delisting request for a site that was found to have been abusively blacklisted here by ArbComm, and that blacklisting there was mentioned, though ArbComm could not address it, having no authority over meta, is somehow part of a justification for this ban on Wikipedia? You are aware, I assume, that your remit as an administrator here does not reach to meta, right?

You are banning under general sanctions, but you have not specified the behavior for which I am being banned. I would agree that there was problematic behavior at Cold fusion, seriously problematic, but I wasn't part of it, or, more accurately, recently, after I returned, I was the target of some of it. There is no comparison. Do you believe that I (1) was adequately warned as to my behavior being considered by a neutral admin as problematic? and that (2) I then continued it after warning? What, specifically, is the problem behavior that was a violation of discretionary sanctions, as specified in the ArbComm decision? I don't think I should have to guess. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no authority over Meta, true. That was not included because we have any authority over it here. It was included as evidence of the behavior which is problematic. I would be happy to clarify that somewhere else, if you like. Your totality of edits there and here formed a pattern which convinced me (and from the AN thread, many others if not everyone else) that you are returning to the problematic editing which got you topic banned by Arbcom. Had you been indicating such elsewhere (in the meta thread only, say) but not engaged in anything here at all, there would be no cause for a case here, but you did in fact return to the problematic behavior on enwiki.

I see and acknowledge your assertion that you were not editing problematically on Cold fusion or related to that topic elsewhere, but I reject it. Whether your behavior is reasonable is, once administrators are called in (much less Arbcom) not your personal judgement to make. We have to review independently and assess the situation. Was there some general head-butting, including such directed towards you? Yes. Were you editing now in a completely innocent manner, a victim of prior biases and upset other users? No. You were participating, actively, and engaged in the problems.

Were you warned? Guy's AN filing constituted at least minimal warning; there were multiple warnings of one degree or another that followed in the AN discussion. No action was taken based on Guy's initial filing. We initiated open discussion and asked you about the situation.

You responded in 3 problematic ways:

1. Continued combative editing on Talk: Cold fusion [10] [11] [12]. 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.

2. Your behavior on meta [13] taken in totality. By itself, not necessarily actionable. As part of an overall picture, however, a component.

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.

There was already an arbcom finding that your behavior on this topic was, in the past, unacceptable. You assert that it was inapplicable here, or flawed in some way. However, again, you don't get to judge that. Arbcom and uninvolved administrators get to judge that, based on the situation and history and discussions about future intent.

You are asserting that you were behaving differently. Again, you don't get to judge that; we do, and there's a clear consensus that your behavior was the same as previously got you topic banned and blocked for months.

There's a policy section covering that: Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, part of the Disruptive Editing guideline. I find it unfortunate that you have for some years persisted in this despite all efforts by the community, admins, and Arbcom to get the message through. Please believe me now: What you've been doing is wrong, brings you into disrepute, and does no good for the encyclopedia or our goal of providing good information to people. You need to stop now, hence the topic ban. You really needed to stop 16 months ago.

The past is past. You were given a reasonably clean slate to work with when the Arbcom restrictions expired this summer. What you chose to do dirtied it again. If you think this is an appropriate way to edit Wikipedia, perhaps it's better if you do leave now. I am hopeful that you can find some other topic(s) which you can remain positive and contribute to, hence the topic ban and not a block. But you pretty much wrapped your life around this here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The meat

Thanks for the specifics.

• Continued combative editing on Talk: Cold fusion

*[14]. This was a very straight discussion of a revert. Very clear that I wasn't going to revert him. If nobody else responded positively to what I wrote, this would be over. I fail to see what is improper at all about this edit. The issues have been discussed to death elsewhere; below, I'll give a fresh example of what's been going on. You are aware, I assume, that ScienceApologist was banned from all fringe articles previously, including Cold fusion? This was a moderate response.

• [15] I'm getting a bit touchy [here], but have you seen what ScienceApologist was writing over the last few days. As you say, this wasn't anything "necessarily actionable." Believe me, he's been doing actionable stuff. That revert of his is part of an actionable pattern, one actually damaging the project. My argument on Talk:Cold fusion simply is no comparison. Over the previous few days, I'd been reaching out to ScienceApologist, inviting his participation, trying to engage with him. He'd been responding as if I were the enemy. Which, to him, apparently, I am. I'm not going to give you all the diffs because he's not the topic here, I am. But I'm telling you the context.

• [16] What's wrong with this? It's a bit long, but it was a new topic, I'd never encountered before. I'd thought that links to sister WMF wikis were encouraged, I was flabbergasted to see this reverted as if Wikiversity were my private playground. I'd been inviting ScienceApologist and other editors to help out there, build learning resources on cold fusion. GWH, I think you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I truly don't see those edits as "combative." They were discussion, reasoned argument. This is what you want to stop? You think this is what ArbComm sanctioned me for?

• Your behavior on meta [17] taken in totality. By itself, not necessarily actionable. As part of an overall picture, however, a component.

• You are judging my Wikipedia privileges by my legitimate behavior on meta. I can defend that argument there. This is the first time I went back after the denial of delisting at the beginning of 2009. It had always been my plan to get whitelistings at en.wikipedia, which I'd done -- in spite of incredible flak -- and a showing of actual usage, first. Which I had also done. While I was banned, though, it slid back, with what amounted to long-term POV-pushing, contrary to deliberated, carefully considered consensus. There was a single link added to Martin Fleischmann. JzG revert warred to keep it out. That's, I think, the one time I ever took him to AN/I. The matter was considered on the article Talk page, with extreme throughness, rather silly for one convenience link, but I'd hoped that it would set a precedent. It attracted attention, there was participation by admins. And the conclusion was to reject the copyvio argument, and about all the others. That was a confirmation of the whitelist administrative finding. Yet, numerous times, one of the same set of editors would show up to take it out. It just happened today, and another editor I've not interacted with reverted it back. Those reverts back in have been done by administrators. But while I was banned, one of the cold fusion editors had removed it, and I hadn't noticed it, and just put it back a day or two ago. Because consensus had been established, I didn't think this a COI violation.... In any case, this is a tough problem at meta, and the meta admin who decided that original blacklisting turned out to be quite a problem. Have you seen the argument for the original blacklisting? It was a complete mess. Blacklist admins have a strong tendency to never lift a blacklisting, I worked on this for some time. And Beetstra really dislikes interference, he argued strongly against what became the finding in RfAr/Abd and JzG. We have admins who don't accept ArbComm precedents and findings, they have discovered that they can generally ignore them and nothing happens. Are you aware that RfAr/Abd and JzG decided that the blacklist is not to be used for content control? That ArbComm noted the meta blacklisting, and that am, there, simply asking meta to undo what was blatantly a blacklisting based on arguments of "fringe," and other irrelevancies, and not on spamming, the purpose of the blacklist? Are you aware that the evidence in these things tends to get long, often? Jed Rothwell had been accused of spamming, and I examined all the edits of the possible relevant accounts, and there was no spamming at all. The whole thing was bogus, and this has wasted a great deal of editor time.

• 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.

• Can you point to an "opportunity to defuse the situation"? Jehochman, very familiar with this situation with JzG, tried, but what he offered me was essentially a voluntary version of what you are enforcing as a sanction. Was there something I missed?

• Spurn? So I'm banned because I pointed out that the ban request was abusive? What was I being asked to do, except Go Away? Not Away from JzG, it was he who dragged me to AN. Was he having a problem with my editing? He wasn't participating, he's not been a contributor to Cold fusion, he's just popped in now and then to assert his POV and go away. No article writing, no suggestions for text, just taking out something He Doesn't Like. He doesn't care about sources.

I don't see cause for a ban there, GWH. But I'm going to guess one:

• If I get so many editors upset, I must be doing something wrong.

• I'm just going to point to one counter-argument. ArbComm is just finishing up a major case, involving the same people, roughly, that I was flagellated for calling a "cabal" in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. There, they were called a "faction" or something like that. The meaning was exactly the same. What factional affiliation does is to present an appearance of local consensus. There is a reason why "we don't vote!" It's because we have no mechanisms for avoiding this kind of assembly. I offended the faction, first by assisting with RfC/GoRight. That put me on their radar, I'd exposed the tag-team reversion involved, the attacks on new editors with the "wrong POV," etc. (Which has finally come to the attention of ArbComm.) Then, with JzG, I'd clearly become a real hazard, and they made a point looking for reasons for me to be restricted. These are the same editors, GWH. I have a reputation for resolving disputes elsewhere, but because of the activities of this faction, they poured into the second RfAr, I was restricted from doing the very thing that I did best: rescuing editors about to go under, ready to be banned for revert warring or incivility, mediating the dispute, and turning editors who were fighting each other into cooperating friends. And it would stick.

• This is what you are now assisting by your precipitous decision, GWH. Look carefully. The future of the wiki may be at stake. It is not about me. It is more about what you do, here and in other situations, and what many like you do and have done in the past.

• I'm not arguing for myself, I don't need -- at all -- to be editing Wikipedia, it is, in fact, a nuisance. I'm arguing for the future of the wiki. It really doesn't matter what happens to me, I'm just one editor. But these people have abused many, many editors, they have caused enormous disruption. Whether this is addressed now, or later, or never, isn't really my problem, except I do intend to follow due process on this. Starting with you. What do you think? --|Abd (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "cabal" - I'm not involved in the climate change arbcom case or editing the articles. I am aware of the arbcom case. I don't see any overlap between the issues here - the articles, the editors on them - and that case that's currently active. JzG isn't a party to the climate change case. He didn't present evidence. He didn't make a non-party comment in the RfAR step. I don't see anything from him in the Proposed Decision or talk pages.

Even if I blindly accepted your allegations there - which I don't, and which Arbcom explicitly rejected in the Abd-WmC case a year ago - you aren't showing any connection between that and your current issues.

It appears - on quick inspection, there are a lot of editors over there - that there's really no substantiative editor overlap between this incident and that case at all. If you have specific names in mind, please point them out.

(side note - I appear to have left a RfAR step uninvolved comment urging Arbcom not to take the Climate case, feeling that it was blowing up a minor incident that got properly resolved. I don't think that constitutes a connection...)

Even if some organized group did exist, and assuming for the sake of argument it did, your editing here taken by itself and in local context for the articles would still be problematic. We don't rule out the possibility of baiting and "drawing people offsides", but you initiated the behavior that was under review.

Regarding the larger question of whether your edits are or were problematic...

I'm sorry. I can't say this more plainly: You are creating a problem with those edits.

I can see that you don't see that. I am not accusing you of doing it to deliberately disrupt or accusing you of lying. I think that you just don't see how disruptive you are, and clearly don't believe it.

Again: You are creating a problem with those edits.

If you still don't believe me, please feel free to appeal, to either AN or the Arbitration Enforcement boards, as noted above, and if that fails to Arbcom.

I predict you will, because it's clear you still don't believe you are creating a problem. I find that somewhat unfortunate; your engagement here on Wikipedia will likely continue to be frustrating and failure-filled if you keep going down this path. I am hoping that I will get through to you and that you can find another path forwards.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, George, again, I appreciate you taking the time to address this. The points:

• You've misunderstood the "cabal" issue. I have utterly no idea that you are involved with the cabal; rather, you are, by a judgment which I consider shallow, supporting a position of some editors involved with a faction. Before RfAr/Abd and JzG was filed, I had filed, with Durova, RfC/JzG 3, with basically open and shut evidence of use of tools. At that point, editors piled in to ignore the evidence and claim I should be banned. The margin was about 2:1 for "ban Abd" vs. "reprimand JzG." So this ended up at RfAr. And ArbComm reprimanded JzG. It also saw the disruption and assumed, as it did later, that I must be doing something wrong. But it didn't identify it specifically, it made two suggestions: escalate more rapidly, and it cautioned me about my "style," without being specific.
• Preceding all this and seemingly unrelated, I had assisted with RfC/GoRight, originally to prevent wikilawyered closure by GoRight, but then I read the RfC itself and was horrified. He was being railroaded. So I compiled evidence, and this appears to have avoided an immediate ban (except for a narrow one which he accepted). This was my first contact with the Global Warming faction. When RfAr/Abd and JzG was successful, a very active participant in that faction came after me at Cold fusion. He'd never shown any interest in cold fusion before, but he became a determined revert warrior, including Talk page disruption, so much that I abandoned editing there for a while. Eventually, he revert warred with other editors (and I'd made one edit), and gamed RfPP to get the article protected (the revert warrior claiming that I was revert warring!) into such a poor condition that even he, later, when there was polling, didn't support his own version. That was used as a pretext to ban me from Cold fusion. And to revert all the work that had been accomplished, by an admin under protection, who actually said that it would be provocartive. There was no immediate cause for my ban, the admin was asked and he cited WP:IAR.
• When this went to ArbComm, he lost his bit. But the same editors and friends poured in to, again, call for me to be banned. It is very easy under those conditions to assume that with so many editors against one, the one must be doing something wrong. Was I doing something wrong? Probably. But nobody else had been able to confront this faction, and while it just happened that they were confronted by someone else, the response is trivial, so far, compared to the long-term disruption involved. I'm not perfect.
• I'm not intervening in that case, this is just background for my own. With editors other than those involved in the "cabal," I normally get along well. I've welcomed participation by editors, and have supported editors, whose POV I strongly disagree with. (Such as GoRight, as an example.) I believe that to have a neutral project, we must have participation from all POVs. People who imagine themselves as neutral are almost certainly ignorant, more knowledgeable people -- especially experts -- almost always have a strong POV except in certain areas where they know that we don't know enough to come to a firm conclusion, so they don't.
• I am not creating a problem, you are correct that I haven't accepted this. The problem already existed. I uncovered it, and it's easy to blame it on me. If people were watching and checking, they'd get it immediately. There used to be more users who would do this!
• I have no preference as to what you decide. I simply urge you to consider it carefully, the principles here are important. If I created a problem by discussing the text of the article, providing sources, and providing overall analysis related to that, then, I'd say, this kind of problem is being created in many articles, and those with more knowledge than others are preferentially being banned, whenever that knowledge conflicts with some easy, popular impression. And, indeed, I've seen this happen many times, over the years. If it was just me, I wouldn't bother.
• The reason why I have no preference is that, on the one hand, if you drop the ban, I can then proceed and hope that the disruption doesn't follow me again. I assure you that I would proceed with caution. I have, in fact, always attempted to minimize disruption, even when I believe that I'm the harbinger of a coming consensus. I recognize when we aren't there yet, and I'm careful. But neither will I roll over and play dead and neglect the welfare of the project. I'd rather leave Wikipedia entirely than work here under conditions that require such a pretense and neglect. If you drop the ban, I might actually do nothing but make an occasional, rare suggestion.
• And, on the other hand, if you stay with the ban, I then may follow the fast track to ArbComm that has been provided with discretionary sanctions. I assume that I'd go first to Arbitration enforcement, related to two cases, the two in which I've been involved, the first because of JzG, a named party in that case who is repeating behavior involved in his sanction, and ignoring advice that was given to him by arbitrators, and the second because cold fusion is involved. There has been long-term disruptive editing at Cold fusion, it existed before I was aware of it, and it continued while I was banned. It's preposterous to blame the state of that article on me, I was hardly responsible for any of it. I'm under an MYOB ban, I could not have intervened in, say, the Climate Change case because of that. But I'm definitely an "originating party" here.
• Look, GWH, many people have given me advice based on the idea that I'd be motivated to preserve my right to edit. I'm not motivated. "Abd" means "servant," and I've been here, for whatever time, to serve this community, and if it doesn't want what I do -- what I do well -- that's fine with me, the world is vast and sticking around where I'm not wanted is not my habit. I've more or less concluded, already, that I'm not wanted, but I do know that there are exceptions, including perhaps some arbitrators (who will, unfortunately perhaps, recuse) and I know that when the opportunity has arisen that I'm actually heard, I'm confirmed. The question before ArbComm should be -- and has been -- the welfare of the wiki. I may well be personally better off if banned, which is why I'm singularly unimpressed by predictions that I'll be banned. Being banned would relieve me entirely of responsibility for Wikipedia and the community. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
• So, again, thanks for your consideration. --Abd (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

we finished here?

GWH, as you might know, it takes two or more to make a conflict. If you look at the behavior of one side only, you can come to very incorrect conclusions as to the cause. I saw this well over twenty years ago with on-line communities. Even though, for the first time, the entire record of some dispute was available, people would not look back, they would look only at what was in front of them, and if they saw someone behaving "disruptively," they assumed this person was the cause. Now, that's easy enough to understand. What wasn't so easy was that when someone else would intervene and point out that the "disruptive" behavior was rooted in, say, abuse from their friend, they would not look back. The new person was now also "disruptive."

The "cabal" stuff was not at all the core of my response. However, addressing it, the connections between the editors would not necessarily be obvious. For example, during the period when I was under attack at Cold fusion, ScienceApologist was under ban, and ultimately was blocked for a few months. So, just looking at cold fusion now and then, you wouldn't seen ScienceApologist showing up during that period. Hipocrite, however, was the "agent" of the cabal, and very much a close cooperator with ScienceApologist. (The "cabal" is informal, but agency happens anyway.) Hipocrite is involved with the Climate Change arbitration, and may be sanctioned in that.) ArbComm, during my case, was mixed. Most arbitrators made claims that I'd not shown any evidence for illegitimate collaboration; however, I had not claimed illegitimate collaboration. The term "cabal" was first used on Wikipedia by Jimbo Wales, to refer to the "administrative cabal." All I was claiming was that there was a kind of mutual involvement, and that caution should therefore be exercised in assuming that an editor or administrator was "uninvolved."

That I was banned from cold fusion originally by a particular administrator was not a coincidence. And it has very, very much to do with Climate Change. But I don't expect you to review all that, it takes a huge amount of evidence to show these kinds of connections, and, I know, you only have so much time. Instead, I've been urging you to look at what I did. You still have not specified exactly what it was that I did that was disruptive.

I think you are making a common assumption. If an action is followed by disruption, the action was disruptive. That's even a reasonable assumption, but it does not necessarily reach to root causes. On your Talk page, I've pointed to a serious BLP problem on Stanley Pons. How did the text come to be that way? It's actually pretty obvious, once one knows the history of Cold fusion on Wikipedia, and how editors work. An editor has an idea about a topic, in this case, that Cold fusion is bogus, pathological science, fraud was involved, etc. So that's how they write the article! And then, of course, they have to, eventually, source what they write (and what they write came from how they'd interpreted what they had read in this or that place, or what they were told by a friend, etc.), so they search for confirmation. They find some words here and there which seem to confirm it, so they then cite those sources. That the sources, overall, don't at all confirm what they are writing completely escapes them. They only are looking for "verification" of what they wrote. They are not seeking to present a balanced view. They believe that their view is the truth, and isn't the truth "neutral"?

Those words should have set off alarm bells, they are accusing a living person of fraud and professional incompetence and ethical violations. It should take a high standard of evidence to allow that to stand. Yet, in fact, the language they used is synthetic. From the source saying that some accused Pons of unethical behavior, the editor has stated that the "scientific community" so concluded. The source doesn't say that. This came from the editor's personal opinion.

And once editors have committed themselves to that personal opinion, for some personalities, they won't consider anything else, and if you try to point out the sources to the contrary, you are "cherry-picking" and "POV-pushing." In fact, they are seeing themselves in a mirror.

If I hold up a mirror to someone, and they get angry at what they see, am I being disruptive?

To answer my own question, yes. Except that it's a kind of disruption that may be necessary. I had understood that as a COI editor, I should confine myself to discussion of proposed changes in Talk. That's what I did. And it is for that discussion that I've been banned by you. And this is why this must go to ArbComm for review. You have tossed WP:COI in the trash, and you have banned a POV, even though you imagine that you aren't doing that, you are, you believe, banning "disruptive behavior." But what was the disruptive behavior? It was asserting a POV, providing ample sources to support it, and seeking neutral text in the article.

I'll allow some time for response, and if there is none, I'll take this to the Committee, either through AE or directly. --Abd (talk) 12:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

supportive comment by IP user

• I am not creating a problem, you are correct that I haven't accepted this. The problem already existed. I uncovered it, and it's easy to blame it on me. If people were watching and checking, they'd get it immediately. There used to be more users who would do this!

Maybe those who read into the spectacle and know exactly what happened are also smart enough not to say anything.... oeps.... See how it is all your fault after all? (I'm joking) I wanted to say I like your wikiversity article. It could use some work but I'm not familiar enough with the topic to help. It does seem a much better place to describe the technology without all the pathological journalisms? 84.106.101.44 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having "students" would make it much better. I'm really an "advanced student," in a sense, there is lots of stuff I don't know and probably will never know ... but I know, usually, how to find out and I know who to ask.

The Wikiversity article is just a beginning, it's not well elaborated at all. I've been starting seminars on subtopics, Wikiversity is good for that. You really can explore a topic there. A psychology professor is having his students write an entire textbook. The book, when it's done and polished, will be moved to Wikibooks. I've started a stub at Wikibooks on Cold fusion, but I'm too busy to really write a book now. Wikiversity is a good place to develop a book, though, and policies there allow original research. Wikibooks has stricter standards. Wikibooks is supposed to be for textbooks, Wikiversity for instructional materials, and instructional materials can be biased. Universities don't have policies that say their professors can't express their opinions! And a seminar can be run by students, who help each other study a topic. Thanks for stopping by, whoever you are. Why not register an account at Wikiversity, if you don't already have one, and join us?

Yeah, Wikiversity is like a breath of fresh air after slogging through the muck on Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I will definitely have a look around the versity. Not sure if I will make an account, I like IP editing, there are disadvantages having people profiling you and reading things in your comments that you didn't write. I'm most likely already on some specialist for writing on your talk page. With this IP it took me 2 edits for some one to run an IP lookup and mention my country on the article talk page.[18] *laughs* I do have to admit my edit (revert) was some what of a joke as the proposed content violated about a dozen style guidelines. Still, it would be wonderful if trained experts would be allowed to write something about the topic in the article. For you it might be specially hilarious to have a look at the edit. It's like the cold fusion POV war only in overdrive. Look how neutral it is? ha-ha Safe to say I'm not going to try to reason with those who took possession of the article, I'm much to biased you know? But it's there in the archive now, for you to find. :) 84.106.101.44 (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are more anonymous, if you want to be, with an account. There are also ways to drop an account, there is no particular requirement that you always edit logged-in; however, if you do it for certain kinds of purposes, it could be a problem. I.e., if you behave properly with an account, and then log out to insult users... or if you use logged-in and logged-out edits to create an appearance of additional support for some position, or if you use them to avoid violating rules about reverting others' edits, i.e., WP:3RR. But having more than one account, using different accounts to edit in different areas, is generally okay. But I wouldn't bother. Too complicated.

As to the changes you made to Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell, well, I'm more than skeptical. My operating and very strong hypothesis is that Meyer was a fraud. And a theory to extract energy from electric fields is nothing new. Problem is, it takes energy to create the field, and you can't extract more than you put in; indeed, you always extract less. I hope you don't think that cold fusion has anything to do with this! I'm aware of work attempting to extract energy from magnetic fields, and the behavior of those doing it is quite what I'd expect of sophisticated con artists. Steorn, to be specific. If they aren't scammers (which, by the way, is not necessarily illegal, it depends on how they do it, and I think they are pretty sophisticated), then they are doing a fantastic job imitating them.

In any case, you should know better than to source text in a Wikipedia article from a web page at Before It's News! --Abd (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, as to the changes you made to cold fusion, I'm more than skeptical. My operating and very strong hypothesis (read "uninformed bias") is that cold fusion was a fraud. And a theory to extract energy from heavy water is nothing new. Problem is, it takes more energy than you get in return, you can't extract more than you put in; indeed, you always extract less. (Some dude wrote this in the 1700's so it can only be right) I hope you don't think that Stanley Meyer had anything to do with this pathological science by press release! I'm aware of work attempting to replicate cold fusion, and the behavior of those doing it is quite what I'd expect of fringe physicists. Naturwissenschaften, to be specific. If they aren't scammers (which, by the way, is not necessarily illegal, it depends on how they do it, and I think they are pretty sophisticated), then they are doing a fantastic job imitating them. In any case, you should know better than to source text in a Wikipedia article from a web page at LENR-CANR.org it clearly does not have an editorial policy that is compatible with the goals of external sourcing!

I hope your sense of humor can take a joke like that. :) 84.106.101.44 (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you did have me going for a few seconds. --Abd (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)