Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley

Initiated by William M. Connolley (talk) at 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


Statement by your name

Abd's involvement in AFD appears to rise to an infrigement of his ban, e.g. the discussion here [2]: It is not normal discussion for one participant in an AfD, which is a community process, to respond to most comments on one side with argument. If there is more evidence to be presented, by all means, present it, but there is never evidence for non-notability, so I'd recommend shutting up and let editors present what evidence they have.... The arbcomm ban Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute... doesn't define "dispute"; do arguements at AFD rise to the level of "dispute" within the meaning of the ban? Note the "harassment" stuff here [3].

@M, V: fair enough; I thought it might be more usefully handled as a clarification, but if you'd rather see it at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Abd William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@V: as it turns out, the discussion at AE is turning on the meaning of the word "polls" in your judgement, so the issue of clarification remains open William M. Connolley (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abd

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

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

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

Vassyana: Well, to give WMC's request a positive construction, he's asking for clarification of the sanction, and the problem is that he's not the one who would need it, I suspect. He has no legitimate purpose to intervene in this case -- and the last one --, unless he's planning to be the monitor, with Mathsci, of my behavior. Mathsci voted in the AfD right after I did. I could go back and find lots of examples of what could be wikistalking, and evidence of intent to harass. But it really should be simple. A review of the RfAr should show that WMC and Mathsci should be hands-off, unless specific article business requires them to interact with me. ArbComm sanctions should not be enforced (or enforcement requested) by highly involved editors unless they are personally being affected by the sanctioned editor's behavior, that's a general principle that should be considered here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell and Enric Naval. No admin who acts within the spirit of recusal policy has anything to fear from me, even if they make mistakes. No sysop has lost his or her privileges simply from blocking me, nor have any been taken by me to RfAr over it or even a noticeboard. The only direct loss was for WMC, who insisted on the right to block me long after it was blatantly and blindingly obvious to everyone else that he shouldn't, and he went ahead anyway, while the case was being considered. Sure, if I'm blocked without cause, and it's not a mere short block but indef, and I put up an unblock template and it's denied without what I consider good cause, I'd go to ArbComm. It's my right (and their right to decline or accept the case, so if there is a problem for an admin, ArbComm has decided it's worth examining).
Sure, an admin should be careful about blocking me, but shouldn't they be even more careful about editors less able to defend themselves? I see these comments added here today. Who's maintaining disruption over this, stirring the pot? Tznkai makes a harmless or even helpful comment on my Talk page about an alleged violation, and bang! WMC and Enric Naval are all over it at User_talk:Tznkai#Abd, with Enric Naval bringing in off-wiki "evidence" that I'd be happy for ArbComm to consider, if necessary. But I would never bring that kind of thing here unless it was crucial and necessary. If I'm clearly violating my restriction, any admin can block me and ask questions later. It's what happens later that separates the sober administrators from those who are not. I welcome intervention by truly neutral administrators, even if they do something I don't like, because, usually, I can reason with them and they make reasonable decisions, pretty quickly. If it's unclear, then either AE or RfAr/Clarification are the place to go.
There is a problem with MastCell's "spirit of the sanction" proposal. There is no spirit of the sanction, because there is no spirit, no soul, so to speak, behind it, there is just a statement that was made with little deliberation as to what it meant, and why it was being implemented, and what prior damage was being prevented, and it may have meant different things to different arbitrators -- and I think it did. I wrote that I'd write to arbomm-l if I needed clarification, and I didn't think it was needed yet. Perhaps that's my ADHD, it can manifest as a puzzling failure to intuit what people mean if it is not contained in what they say. If I were doing actual damage, ongoing, just banning me until some other solution appeared might be appropriate. But sometimes when one person is getting a number of people upset, blame isn't actually appropriate for that person. Sometimes questions are being raised that must be raised, sooner or later. The existence of massive disruption from a brief comment is a sign that this is the situation. And some good can come out of that. Now or later. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoRight

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

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

  • It is worth noting that WMC has not participated in the AfD, [4], or at the article itself, [5], so one is left wondering just how WMC came to be aware of this issue in the first place? I'll leave it to Arbcom to decide whether there is an actionable behavioral concern here on the part of WMC. --GoRight (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @My good friend Mathsci: Perhaps WMC should be encouraged to remove Abd's talk page from his watch list through the imposition of an interaction ban then. That should cut down on these vexatious requests. --GoRight (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by Mathsci

  • Abd still seems to be testing the limits of his editing restrictions. His reaction to the last clarification on his talk page was not encouraging. [6] It doesn't seem that any further clarification is necessary here. As Vassayana suggests, a request should be made on WP:AE, if users think there are problems with the nature of his participation in this AfD.
  • 129 people have Abd's talk page on their watchlists - presumably WMC is one of those.
  • Offliner (talk · contribs) has already indicated that Abd had joined the EEML in his evidence for the EEML ArbCom case. It seems reasonable to suppose that Abd found out about this particular AfD through that mailing list or some other form of off-wiki correspondence with that group of editors.

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

  • Abd has added another long "explanation" without diffs on his user talk page [7]. It is not clear what its purpose is, except perhaps to deflect attention from his own editing and create drama where there is none. Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

Abd seems to think that an AN ban discussion is a poll[8]. Tznkai (the admin in the AE thread) has told Abd that this one is a violation of the ban [9]. See related discussions User_talk:Tznkai#Abd and User_talk:Abd#Reminder_of_editing_restriction.

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

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


P.D.D.: Regarding Abd's edit of the Oppenheimer-Phillips_process article. It's a violation of his cold fusion topic ban because Abd has repeatedly linked himself this process to cold fusion:

  • On-wiki, cold fusion was cited in three different comments in the talk page[10][11][12]. All three comments were authored by Abd, no one else mentioned cold fusion. Abd even took care of linking to the cold fusion article when pointing to me the relationship[13]. Abd himself remarked in his third comment that an editorial in Nature listed the OP effect as one of the possible explanations for cold fusion.
  • Off-wiki, around that time, Abd cited the Oppenheimer-Phillips effect to support Takahashi's explanation of cold fusion effects: in wikipedia review [14] and in the VORTEX-L mailing list [15]. Abd had been trying to insert Takahashi's explanation into the cold fusion article.

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

Statement by MastCell

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

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

My prior experience leads me to envision at least two possible branches from this point:

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

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

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I dealt with Abd today in what I considered a quite straightforward act of enforcement of the current editing restriction [16]. The response I got from him, full of assumptions of bad faith, accusations, attempts of intimidation, and threats, was unacceptable. Enforcing the Arbcom decision under these conditions is a highly depressing and stressful exercise, so a clarification or possibly amendment would be appreciated. The rule as stated is vague, it's always been and has remained so even after the latest amendment: no discussing "disputes", but "voting and commenting at polls"? But where does a normal editorial content discussion end, and where does a "dispute" start? Which activities are "polls"? And why are polls exempted anyway; what makes us think his intervention in those has any less potential of growing disruptive than his intervention anywhere else? Since he is gaming these rules, the rules must be tightened. MastCell describes the situation quite well above. As another alternative, I only see the prospect of seeking a community sanction in the form of a full siteban on top of the Arbcom decision. That won't be achieved without yet more blood, sweat and tears, but it might be worth it – there's currently hardly any net positive coming from Abd; he has been making only insignificant numbers of mainspace edits and seems to be spending all his time playing around the edges of his restrictions stirring and perpertuating his disputes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect of Abd's technique of perpetuating conflict despite the restrictions can be seen here. The logic is this: (a) There is a dispute in which Abd is not a originating party. (b) Abd comments on the dispute, breaching restriction. (c) Admin tells Abd not to breach restriction. (d) Abd attacks admin. (e) By attacking the admin, Abd has now created a dispute in which he is a party, which he then cites as a pretext to continue commenting on the initial dispute (a). Obviously, this cycle can and will be repeated ad infinitum. It's just like the "make-admins-involved" cycle: (a) Abd misbehaves; (b) Admin warns Abd; (c) Abd misbehaves against admin; (d) Admin responds; (e) Abd now claims admin is "involved" and therefore barred from taking action. These cycles need to be stopped, now. I have therefore blocked Abd for breaching his restriction with the edit cited above [17]. Arbitrators can review the block here while they're at it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tznkai

Its amazing what kind of conversations can happen on your talk page without your participation or even knowledge. First time I logged in today what with a real life that surfaces for several days at a time. If I've got the basic time line here, we had this request for clarification, which lead to an AE request, which I handled a week ago (Jan 12). Then, seperately, I saw that Abd had commented on an AN thread involving GoRight, now we're back here at the same request for clarification? So, which situation are we trying to clarify? I will likley comment further after I read my talk page and do the appropriate digging.--Tznkai (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page to Abd, Eric Naval, William M. Connolley, and ATren with this. My opinion remains the same. Bans discussions are not polls. Abd's vague involvement in the greater issue does not give him an in on the dispute. Thus, Abd's editing on the AN thread about GoRight was in fact a violation of his ban. Such is my interpretation as an administrator, and I don't think arbcom needs to go out of its way to affirm simple common sense. Enforcement done under arbitration enforcement is best done at AE, or at least noted there.--Tznkai (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ultraexactzz

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

Statement by Skinwalker

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

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motions

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

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.

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

Support
  1. If there's enforcement to be done, let someone else handle it; neither of you should be involved with the other at this point. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not so sure that WMC is the problem here, but I'm willing to see a complete and utter break in communication and interatcion between the two. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not so sure this is needed, per SirFozzie. Both Abd and WMC demonstrate the same problems with others, not just when they interact with each other, so this is not really addressing the core issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A stopgap measure. KnightLago (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mailer Diablo 06:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. I think an informal request that these editors stop interacting with each other should suffice at this time; I'm not convinced a formal motion is appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. Cool Hand Luke recused per original case - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FayssalF recused per original case - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shell Kinney recused per this - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Steve Smith recused per this - entered by Carcharoth (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Recuse on all matters relating to Abd Fritzpoll (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&oldid=341570224

Leave a Reply