Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

WMC is User:William M. Connolley. Extensively revised, see previous revision.

In order to make clear what occurred in this case, I must first declare that -- please avert your eyes -- the emperor has no clothes.

There is a cabal

"Cabal," as used here, does not imply a secret or conscious conspiracy. Allegations of membership in a cabal are not allegations of wrong-doing or bad faith; however, when there is long-term, consistent, group activity that frustrate policies, it becomes necessary to name it. No sanctions or personal reprimands will be suggested based merely on asserted cabal membership, even if proven. Here, it is only necessary to establish a reasonable suspicion in order to better understand certain community discussions and repeated complaints.

The complete evidence page.

It is justified to consider as cabal-involved, for the purpose of this RfAr, the following editors:

• William M. Connolley
• Enric Naval
• Raul654
• Stephan Schulz
• Verbal
• Mathsci
• Crohnie
• Shot info
• Woonpton
• Spartaz

In addition, the following should be noticed in reviewing surrounding activity:

• Hipocrite
• Short Brigade Harvester Boris
• TenOfAllTrades

When a group of editors act coherently, they may avoid sanction for actions that, for a single editor, would result in warning or block, such as revert warring, accumulated incivility or tendentious argument, and they may present an appearance of consensus, even attracting support from neutral editors who assume, because of the presence of multiple agreeing editors, that the cabal evidence and arguments are unbiased. In considering claims that I have ignored consensus, please consider this constellation, which has frequently ignored or argued against the principles declared in RfAr/Fringe science, specifically:

• Science is not a point of view.
• Prominence
• Advocacy
• Fanning the flames

While there is some level of subjectivity in identifying editors with a cabal, please do not ignore the forest if it seems there are a few fallen trees.

The immediate sequence

• WMC was involved in long-term behavioral dispute with me.[1]
• He edited Cold fusion while protected, reverting to May 14, in expectation of controversy over it (edit summary: Lets wind everyone up), and ignoring an expressed consensus. (Five editors had accepted May 21 and May 31 versions, one editor had expressed a preference on a version from last year, and had then withdrawn the !vote. One editor had suggested, intending discussion, May 14, and one other editor had approved that.)
• I disputed this.
• Then he declared me (and Hipocrite) banned from Cold fusion and its Talk. He did not give a reason.
• I asserted he was involved (due to prior interactions and the present dispute over his edit), which he denied, so I declared my intention to ignore the ban.
• Enric Naval took the issue to AN/I, a discussion began snowing with cabal editors to endorse the ban, so I requested closure to avoid disruption, having recognized the dispute as unlikely to be resolved short of ArbComm.
• The discussion was closed by Heimstern as a one-month page ban. The closing admin specifically acknowledged fulfilling my request for neutral close, to remove the ban from WMC's authority.
• WMC blocked me for making a self-reverted ("per ban") harmless edit, contrary to his expressed prior opinion about harmless edits under ban, and in spite of asserted involvement.
• In spite of charges of involvement, he continues to insist that he remains the enforcer of his ban, ignoring the expired community ban, asserting my ban as indef.
• For diffs and links see [2].

Responses to evidence from others

These are all currently drafts; they may be read for the sense of my response, but they are long and have not been boiled down and checked. If there are significant errors, I'd appreciate notice on my talk page.

• Abd/Response to Stephan Schulz DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Bilby DRAFT
• User:Abd/Response to William M. Connolley DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Enric Naval DRAFT. whew!
• Abd/Response to Mathsci DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Spartaz DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Raul654 DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Shot info DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Alex Bakharev DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Woonpton DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Noren DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Verbal DRAFT
• Abd/Response to Scuro DRAFT

As stated in the request for arbitration, I do not intend to take a stand either way as to whether User:William M. Connolley's actions were appropriate, or not. I prefer to simply provide a raw chronology of relevant events with diffs and to defer to the arbiter's judgment on whether this evidence suggests an abuse of administrative privileges, or not.

A Basic Chronology of Relevant Events

NOTE: This chronology is currently incomplete. I intend to provide further evidence. When my editing is complete I will remove this notice.

NOTE TO Hersfold: I realize that this is getting too big. I will being including it by reference from the page history once it is complete.

From my personal perspective the following events are relevant to a proper weighing of the charges being made in this case:

Prior Interactions Among Participating Parties

NOTE: This section is currently incomplete. I intend to provide further evidence. When my editing is complete I will remove this notice.

Since the topic of there being a "virtual cabal" has been raised and to demonstrate any prior history between relevant participants in this case, I provide the following diffs for your consideration:

[To Be Provided]

Raul's personal grudges and the disruption they create

Canvassing to disrupt these proceedings

See edits by Raul here and here. The ensuing discussion occurs here. To WMC's credit, he declines to participate in Raul's plan.

Note that Raul may be planning further disruption at ArbCom if his efforts to pursue of me in this case (see here, here, here, and to a lesser extent here) are unsuccessful. See this which states "I think [GoRight]'s headed for arbitration regardless of the outcome of the Abd case."

I assert that Raul is disrupting these proceedings, at the very least, by keeping me tied up playing whack-a-mole with him rather than spending my time gathering the raw evidence that I want to which actually is pertinent to the case at hand.

Evidence of needless on-going community disruption

A brief history of his disruption in the pursuit of myself can be found here. Raul's latest attempts to have me banned or sanctioned can be found here and here.

I do not claim to have a spotless record, nor do I claim to be a model editor, but it would be impossible to confront the "Cabal", as Abd calls them, without having some mud thrown at you and having some of that mud stick. However, time and again Raul's attempts have been rebuffed by the community at large leading, no doubt, to an increasing bruised ego and desire to pursue me. His efforts have become increasingly desperate and without substance owing primarily to the simple fact that I actually AM improving my editing behavior over time, based on community feedback, to try and avoid the same pitfalls I had in the past.

Raul's behavior constitutes clear WP:HARASSMENT which is unbecoming of such a highly placed user. This harassment is bad enough but to disrupt the community in an attempt to silence me simply because he disagrees with my personal POV seems highly inappropriate and he should be sanctioned accordingly. His harassment of myself (and others?) should not be allowed to continue. I trust that the Arbiters will take note of this and render an appropriate judgment, or not, as they see fit.

Administrators normally do not have the authority to create bans by themselves

WP:Banning policy#Decision to ban lists 5 procedures for banning. None of them is a ban simply declared by an individual administrator without specific delegation from the arbitration committee. (Throughout this evidence section, when I say "ban" I mean all kinds of bans, whether site bans, page bans etc.)

WMC simply declared that there was a ban

As far as I'm aware, WMC didn't refer to any specific part of the banning policy or name any other specific procedure for banning. When asked about the justification for the ban, WMC said "I'm using common sense",[3] which seems to me to be at odds with WMC's blocking of Abd for a harmless and self-reverted edit.

Declaring bans without proper process creates disruption

We can't expect all Wikipedians to agree on whether a given person should be banned or not, but I agree with MastCell [4] that there's a problem if we can't even agree on whether someone has been banned or not.

WMC muddied the waters by declaring a ban without following any of the standard processes, thus creating a situation where it wasn't clear whether there was a ban or not. This created disruption in the sense of multiple discussions using up editors' time.

Allowing admins to declare bans at will would harm the project

The banning policy does not say that an admin can create a ban at any time by declaring it, and for good reason. NPOV is best achieved by discussion and consensus among large numbers of editors with various POVs. If admins could declare bans at will, they would have too much individual control over article content, for example being able to ban all editors on one side of a content dispute.

An admin can warn someone that they will block them if disruptive behaviour continues, but I don't think it makes sense to warn someone that they will block them if they do any edit at all to a page, (even a harmless or productive edit), in the absense of a ban established by one of the procedures listed in the banning policy.

WMC was involved in page content and in dispute with Abd

WMC edited the cold fusion page with edit summary "Lets wind everyone up", at a time when there were two polls active on the talk page showing some support for other versions of the page. Abd then criticized that edit. WMC subsequently declared that Abd (along with Hipocrite) was banned from the page. (Rebuttal)

WMC wikilawyered by blocking Abd for a harmless edit

WMC blocked Abd after Abd did a one-character edit with edit summary " fix ref. will self-revert per ban." and self-reverted a minute later. WMC had previously expressed an opinion that blocking SA (a banned editor) for fixing spelling corrections etc. would be "stupid". [5] (In the interim WMC had advised SA not to do such edits, [6] and explains the chronology here.)

Abd has been subjected to wikilawyering

I believe that some people dislike Abd because they disagree with his POV, primarily about two things (which I and I believe many other editors agree with him on, but Abd has the boldness to speak out about): enforcement of the principle of admin recusal, and inclusion in articles of material about (significant) minority POVs.

Three situations have been blown out of proportion in which Abd was temporarily confused about sequences of edits due to server problems and edit conflicts: Restoring a comment by Scibaby, which at first Abd didn't know was alleged to be an edit by a banned user (See the part in small font in the middle of the 2nd paragraph here [7]); moving Woonpton's vote in a poll, which Abd explained as intended to be productive but which was confused by edit conflict [8]; and an accidental interaction with another editor while editing the list of parties to this case [9]. The page-ban of Abd from cold fusion was triggered by the overblown vote-moving incident.

Cold fusion is not pseudoscience

Investigation of the Fleischmann-Pons effect is science: controversial science, fringe science, but not pseudoscience. Science by its nature investigates the unknown, and scientific method is being applied in making observations, publishing peer-reviewed articles, discussing proposed explanations, etc., whether or not anything much eventually comes of it. Steven Krivit has been called a "leading authority" on cold fusion in a press release from the American Chemical Society.

Talk page comments by Abd

Abd has ADHD, of a type which makes it extremely difficult for Abd to shorten his comments. [10]. People can ask me to provide summaries of Abd's comments. [11] (Rebuttal)

Reply to Enric Naval

Enric Naval says on this page "Abd says that he can't make shorter comments because he has ADHD..." but tries to support this with a diff which leads to Abd's RfA, where Abd said "I can be quite concise, but it takes me much more time,"[12] a statement which does not conflict with the other statements Enric Naval attempts to contrast it with. Enric Naval also gives a diff of Abd saying "To require me to be succinct when discussing would be, effectively, to require me not to discuss", but in the same diff Abd also says "there are two types of communication: polemic and discussion" and makes it clear that he can write short comments in polemic; thus Enric Naval's claim appears to be false.

Declaration

I've associated with Abd in a number of contexts, for example I quote him on my userpage. I've previously commented on an edit by WMC in an arbitration request. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudocience is under ArbCom discretionary sanctions

ArbCom has put "all articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted" under discretionary sanctions. Such sanctions can be invoked by any uninvolved admin and include "bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics".

Dro(w)ning out any discussion

Communication with Abd is extremely frustrating. His "wall of text" is rambling and without focus. Here he essentially explains that he can't be bothered to write concise texts. I like reading - I own thousands of books and have read many more. But Abd's output is unmanagable. One example of the effect of this non-stop no-control text machine is impressively illustrated in Enric Naval's image: File:Discussion in cold fusion with comments of one editor highlighted.jpg.

Also see [13].

Abd's "Cabal" contains many editors of high scientific literacy

Without violating the privacy of editors, it's obvious from visiting the user pages and linked home pages that a sizable fraction of Abd's alleged "Cabal" members have higher degrees and often doctorates in the sciences. I know that many of them have published in the peer-reviewed academic press. Many or all areas of conflict originate from topics like global warming and, in particular, cold fusion, which require a good understanding of science and the scientific process. This suggest independent functional reasons, not a a conspiracy, as the base to the claimed (by Abd) common opposition to Abd's positions.

Progress to find consensus on a prefered version

Abd was involved in the second edit war which resulted in Causa sui protecting the article prior to WMC's actions. While Abd did not revert, the trigger was Abd re-adding (modified) content which had been central to the earlier edit war. Abd claimed consensus from talk for this, and there was discussion, but it isn't clear that consensus had been reached as many editors (most notably Hipocrite) hadn't engaged by that time, and the core issue (the reliablity of the primary source) was still unsettled.

After Causa sui protected the page, Abd started a vote for which version to revert the article to. Unfortunately he used an unusual methodology for wikipedia (weighted votes), changed one of the proposed versions after someone had voted for it, (moving their vote as part of this), refactored a vote to "unstrike" it against the wishes of the editor, moved proposals to a collapse box if he felt they weren't getting support, and as User:Noren said, the constant changes to the poll made it appear that Abd felt he owned the process. The result was that many of the main editors boycotted the poll, and Hipocrite started a new one. This also garnered little support, although less outright hostility.

In the end, Abd's claimed consensus for which version to revert to came only because Abd had placed votes for people, based on where they voted in the second poll, without their permission and by assigning weights to their votes which they had not agreed to. When WMC reverted to a version prior to the edit warring, there was no reason to presume that consensus was going to be found in the foreseeable future. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's editing at Talk:Cold fusion

Abd started editing the Cold fusion talk page in January, 2009 and was topic banned by WMC in early June. During that time he made 775 edits to the talk page. While there is nothing inherently wrong with extensive discussion, and many of these edits were useful contributions to the discussion, the combination of number and volume (as highlighted by others here) tended to drown out alternatives. Specific problems on Cold fusion include:

• The "walls of text" noted by others here. While it is true Abd has ADHD, he has stated that he is able to reduce these posts, but chooses not to because of time constraints. However, he seems to have recognised this as a problem in other editors ([14] [15] [16]).
• Cold fusion advocacy. Even when making useful points about the improvement of the article, Abd often fell into advocating for cold fusion rather than sticking to discussions about improving the article. ([17], [18], [19], [20]).
• Repetition of points: much of the volume of the posts comes from straight repetition, with Abd restating issues that he has previously raised. For example, the Robert Duncan 60 Minutes story features in a number of his posts, including [21], [22], [23] and [24].
• Abd and Hipocrite battled on the talk page. In particular, they started multiple polls ([25], [26] - these are different to the ones mentioned above) and edit warred over putting discussions in collapsible boxes.
• There appears to be a tendency on Abd's part to separate editors into camps. This raised problems with finding consensus - for example, he argued that one poll was questionable, as editors "piled-on" along standard lines. This was clearer after Abd was banned, with his response to the AN/I discussion, arguing that a faction was opposed to his edits and that other editors who voted to support were "swept along".
• At times, Abd engaged in borderline person attacks - such as his comments about User:Kirk shanahan.

Abd wasn't the only editor causing problems at Cold fusion, but the behaviour seems to me to have been tendentious and potentially disruptive, and arguably enough to warrant a topic ban. Similar views were expressed at the AN/I discussion. - Bilby (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you can call me WMC.

Yet another unreliable chronology of events

Short version, for those not interested in the fine detail: CF and t:CF was a mess. I sorted that out. One person whinged but reasonable people ignored him.

In more detail:

• A moon or more ago my attention was drawn to CF. It was a mess. It usually is - see the protection log, for example [27]. I protected for a week the then-current version, as it happened that of H [28].
• The prot expired, edit warring resumed, CS stepped in and protected the page again [29].
• Much tedious discussion ensued, and I think this is where the battlin' polls came in.
• GoRight proposed a different version to be reverted to. He produced cogent arguments in its favour and for that and the amusement of agreeing with someone I've frequently disagreed with before and who often argues strongly against me, I reverted to his proposed version [30].
• But I don't like page protection, so I looked for something better, and decided that the chief offenders were H and A (though in my heart I though A mostly to blame). So I banned them both, for an indeterminate period of approximately a month, from CF and t:CF [31].
• The people rejoiced [32] [33].
• Abd broke the ban, and disputed the ban from t:CF [34]. I deleted his commented [35] and warned him that any further violation would result in a block.
• H was good.
• A asserted that the ban didn't exist. I told him that it did [36].
• Later, I blocked A after he broke the ban by editing CF [37]
• A often seemed confused about the terms of the ban (links to endless discussion suppressed in the interests of sanity). At one point I had to remind him [38].
• H asked to be unbanned, and I agreed [39]. Contrary to assertions elsewhere, the unblock was unconditional, though it came with strong advice to be good and to observe WP:1RR. Not editing CF was definitely not a condition of unblock.
• I reviewed A's ban [40]. Since the ratio of useful edits to wikilawyering in the interim was well below 1%, I kept the ban in place.

Other stuff

• Someone somewhere asserted that I invoked IAR for the ban. That is incorrect, and I've finally found the diff where I say so: [41].

• Both CT and GR have noticed that I made a comment in the SA matter [42]. GR misrepresents what I said, so allow me to quote it here in full: If SA corrects a spelling error (or reverts clear and blatant vandalism) on a "fringe science" article, and someone blocks him for it, that will be stupid.. That was my opinion then. Subsequently arbcomm clarified its view of these "harmless" edits (see in particular Corens comments on 23:35, 6 March 2009 and others agreement). And so I advised SA that editing in this manner would not work [43]. Hence GR and CT's attempt to assert that my action in blocking Abd was inconsistent with my earlier statements is wrong. In any even, they were all unaware of my earlier comment until I reminded them William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to add more here. There is enough material to show a very clear tendency. I have reviewed only 2/3 of the archives of Abd's talk page. I haven't reviewed the archives of Talk:Cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to go to mediation with Abd unless he agrees beforehand to abide by the result even if it's adverse

because he will only abide by "neutral" mediation[44][45]

Abd has received many good faith advice, warnings and complaints about his behaviour over two years

(since October 2007)

Moved here.

Abd had ample warning that he was going to get himself a topic ban

Moved here.

Abd has been warned after his topic ban that he is headed for an indef block

• [46][47]

Abd believes that he knows better than other users

Sorry, but this reinforces his belief that he is not wrong, and it has to be stated.

• more expert in group discussions both online and offline, first in December 2007[48], latest in April 2009[49].
• has no science title, but feels more expert than Physics PhDs because he had Richard Feynman and Linus Pauling as teachers[50]

Abd accuses and harasses admins that warn him

• To Raul654, [51][52], veiled threaths [53], direct threats "Be careful though, admins who read this. I'm not a newcomer, and biting me could be hazardous, like biting a poison frog. (...) you'll be safe as long as the block appears reasonable enough, even if it is incorrect. If not, though, expect to see proper process ensue"[54]
• To MastCell, saying the he blocked Jed just to support JzG[55]
• To JzG
• To Jehochman, in March 2008, threatening with process [56][57], reply [58]

Abd reacts very badly to corrections

• Raul654 doubts understanding of policy[59], met with disparagement (first sentence) and wikilawyering about policy (rest of the post)[60].

• I proved how his comments filled and overhelmed the talk page[61] (image is linked in Stephan Schultz's evidence), met with derision, said this meant that he made a lot of work, banned me from his talk page[62].

• When told to make shorter comments[63]

Abd's insistance in already rejected points has brought many editors to irritated frustration with him

• Some made peace and kept collaborating
  • User:Beetstra, [64][65]
  • User:NYScholar, [66]
  • User:Fritzpoll
  • User:bouricius, [67]
• Others have given Abd as impossible
  • User:KP Botany, [68] (last paragraph)
  • User:TenOfAllTrades, [69][70]
  • User:Miamomimi [71]
  • User:Socrates2008 [72]
  • User:Woonpton, [73] started this ANI thread on poll
  • myself, compare my current stance with my initial friendly exchange in April 2008
  • User:SDJ complains of baseless acussations and long posts [74]
  • User:Blechnic says that Abd doesn't read his own posts so he won't read them either [75]
  • User:Darkspots [76]
• unknown status
  • User:Keeper76 [77]

The community had support not just for Abd's ban, but also for an indefinite ban

ANI thread on poll, ban review

Abd states ideas that are out of touch with reality

(unrealistic, showing lack of knowledge of how wikipedia actually works)

Abd thinks that:

1. I risk getting banned for my edits at Cold fusion[78]
2. NewYorkBrad put a lot at stake for making one comment[79] (second paragraph)
3. he can void WMC's ban by not consenting to it[80]
4. bad-faith cabals exist:
   • [In reference to ScienceApologist] His friends are trying to get me banned"[81]
   • [82][83]
   • discussion pointed to WP:TINC [84], refuses that he described a cabal while describing a cabal[85][86]
   • [87] the actions [of these editors] are imposible to understand without knowledge that a cabal exists (end of first paragrah), the cabal has been creating dissent by using blocks and bans to repress dissent in its goal of enforcing its miunsderstanding of policies (start of ante-last paragraph)
   • back in August 2008 before starting to edit cold fusion "Well, there is a kind of cabal, the real kind, which is mostly virtual and informal, which is clearly out to get me, but, apparently, they aren't in firm control"[88]
5. I am an anti-CF POV pusher[89] (second section), in reply to my ban review. Just one representative example.
6. the mediation backed 100% his content positions[90]
7. Arbcom ratified his last case and only gave him some good advice[91] (3rd paragraph from the end), [92] (start of first paragraph), [93] (first paragraph)
8. hoaxes should not be deleted, and hoaxers tolerated, here
9. Jehochman could be blocked for saying that And edits disruptively [94]

Abd performs experiments with democracy

Supported Wikipedia_talk:Delegable_proxy, then experimental sock User_talk:The_Community. See the poll that got him topic banned experimenting with Range voting.

"I've spent the last nine months studying WP power structure"[95] (that means October-November 2007)

Abd sees no problem at all with any of his editing, and does not admit having a problem

See my last-last-last good faith attempt to solve the issue, specific examples[96], Abd sees no problem[97]

Abd thinks that long comments are not a problem because people can simply not read them

[98][99]

Abd sees no problem at all with his very long posts and assumes bad faith in two editors asking him to be more concise

[100]. resisted collapsings[101], assumes bad faith from people asking him to be more concise: that I'm trying to prevent people from reading his posts[102] (ante-last paragraph) and that Olorinish is "[trying] try to stop others from discussing what they consider worthy of discussion (...)" [103]

Abd says that he can't make shorter comments because he has ADHD...

ADHD userbox in his userpage, said publicly by himself since before February 2008 [104]. In April 2009 "To require me to be succinct when discussing would be, effectively, to require me not to discuss"[105]

...but also says that he can be concise when he wants...

[106] (also thinks it necessary to make very long posts)

...and that he refuses to make them shorter...

[107] (search for "As to the length")

...and that his short comments are met with more criticism than his long ones

he chooses not to make shorter comments because they are met worse than his long ones [108]. He doesn't entertain the explanation that more people read his short comments than his long ones, that he was proposing an incorrect idea in the first place, that the shorter comment is clearer in expressing the incorrect idea, and that this is what is causing the increase in negative comments, which are actually just comments correcting him.

Abd and other CF advocates have driven away editors from the article

[109] (first paragraph, when asked to make an edit to the article) (there are more diffs, but they are difficult to find).

Abd has also made good work and collaborated effectively

Several editors are grateful with Abd's work, got 24 supports in his second RfA, occasionally I collaborated well with him. Problem is not taking heed to multiple requests for his behaviour to change, and still not seeing any problem. Pushing issues past a reasonable point ran him into problems when accusing Fritzpoll of sockpuppeting here, then in Talk:Cold fusion and in the future since he's failing to interiorize advice to change his behaviour.

The community didn't find any problem with the blocks performed by WMC

Moved here.

Abd had already had WMC's possible desysoping and its cabal in mind in July 2008

July 2008, five months before editing Cold Fusion. "I'm trying to advise WMC how to prevent his being desysopped. If he relies on that circle of "friends and supporters," very good chance his days as an admin will be over. Or not. It's always possible that the oligarchy will win, temporarily"[110], got the idea of a cabal centered in WMC from media articles[111]

Multiple sources say that Cold fusion is pathological science or is considered as such, and Abd has willfully ignored them in several occasions

List of sources here.

I first put together 14 Rs that I had put together about CF being compared to polywater and N-Ray. Abd's first reaction was hand-waving away all of them and stating that there were RS contradicting them without specifying them and then going back to doing OR about the DOE review, wikilawyering about WP:PSCI, and saying that CF was no longer considered like that after the DOE review [112] I compiled 8 sources more to show that CF was not accepted by the scientific community after the DOE review and he replied by more OR about his interpretations of the DOE review [113] and wikilawyering about one of the sources [114]. Some days later I directly challenged Abd to address those sources already [115], and he never replied. Later I pointed Abd to those sources in three different occasions 10 May 2009, 31 May 2009 and 2 June 2009. In the first case he answered with an OR-filled discussion about the Storms book and the Chinese paper, which were told to him that they were not RS, and a lot of OR about the DOE review instead of citing its final report. In the other two cases he never replied. At that point I gave up

Abd has stonewalled progress in the article by walls of text and derailing discussions into off-topic and OR

I tried to insert an analysis by Padley, Abd reverted it with a edit summary making reference to his own personal opinions on the analysis [116] launched two long OR-filled veering-into-off-topic-all-the-time disputes here and here saying Padley had bad credentials and that he hadn't read the paper (all according to his own OR reading of the original paper). Another analysis that made a similar statements, and which was done by a scientific with shining credentials, was lost in the noise. I gave up in frustration. After Abd was banned the matter arised again and it was quickly dispatched here, where the two analysises were introduced into the article with a calm very short discussion, no disruption, and apparently consensus that the article had been improved.

Abd has has consistenly removed or reworded sourced negative statements, and edit warred with other editors

Some of these statements were only restored when I was accidentally reminded of them much later in unrelated discussions.

• that the LENR name was to avoid the bad connotations of the CF name [117]
• that the 2009 paper didn't have mainstream confirmation, because the source didn't explicitely say it [118]
• the sources saying that none of the proposed explanations have been accepted, placing it in a "non-nuclear explanations" section [119]
• the statement saying that the 2009 paper could have other explanations (after removing Padley's criticism of the same paper) [120] This edit also refuses to call a CF cell by its name.
• attributing a phylosophy of science book because "(...) it's bullshit, but, hey, RS isRS (...)" [121]
• replacing a negative statement from the Hagelstein secondary source with a cherry-picked positive statement from the review that the DOE reviewers examined to make their conclusions while at the same claiming WP:SYNTH [122], I reverted explaining that it was in the Hagelstein source [123], Abd then tagged it as unsourced [124] so I put a separate ref just for that statement so there could be no confusions[125]. I later noticed that the very same wording was also in DOE's final report and I added it too [126]. And then tagged the section with {{pov}} claiming that it misrepresented sources and made WP:WYNTH [127], then removed other negative material from the section saying that it wasn't substantiated by the source [128], removes reference to Robert Park and to the "miracles" [129] and later asserted in that talk page that Park has surely changed his opinion about CF after so many years, even after being presented with recent blog posts where Park directly rejects that notion as preposterous here. Abd even removed a remark by CF advocate Krivit about the possiblity of the neutrons having a different origin [130]. I finally noticed a problem with the sources that could have led Abd to think that I was misrepresenting sources and I fixed it[131] and I fixed the SYNTH problems that he had pointed in the talk page [132] and I announced the good news in the talk page [133][134]. Abd never replied and the tag has stayed there abandoned for three months until I removed it today[135].
• Abd reworded twice times the 2009 paper making it look as if it was accepted that it had confirmed the existance of neutrons [136][137]. Abd finally accepted a compromise but with an edit summary saying "no implication was made re mainstream view, though I'm not sure who Main Stream is and if we can quote him. But try this."[138]

On May Abd started edit-warring with Hipocrite, specially about Storms, and with Verbal, in addition to the edit-warring that he had bern having with me and Olonirish culminating with full protections in 21st May and 1st June, with Abd being topic banned in 2nd June [139]

William M. Connolley has acted properly as an administrator

WMC does not seem to have been involved in editing cold fusion or its talk page. When edit warring broke out, he locked the page at the "wrong version" and then issued page-bans to both Hipocrite and Abd for edit warring. Hipocrite responded cooperatively and the page ban was eventually lifted. Abd contested the page-bans as soon they were issued, with threats of an ArbCom case. The page-bans stopped the impasse created by Abd, whose edits were effectively filibustering on the talk page, almost amounting to WP:OWN. He had created non-standard methods of polling and discussion, which had already driven away editors such as User:Woonpton here.

Abd's account has regressed to that of single purpose fringe POV-pusher

For the last few months, Abd's edits have been almost exclusively related to cold fusion. In his edits he has revealed that has had off-wiki contacts with Steven B. Krivit an Jed Rothwell [140], both of them non-scientists who advocate cold fusion. Many times Abd has written that cold fusion is not a fringe topic but an "emerging science".[141][142] He has, perhaps jokingly, suggested inviting the skeptical science writer Gary Taubes [143] and retired physicist Eric Sheldon [144] to join discussions there. The single most important question to be solved by this ArbCom case seems to be: is there some way Abd can reverse this apparent regression and get back to contributing to wikipedia in a more constructive and less confrontational way? [145]

Abd has made unfounded statements about William M. Connolley and a cabal

Abd has repeatedly questioned WMC's authority as an administrator. Abd's edits contain innuendos that suggest that WMC is part of some covert off-wiki conspiracy. Since this case began he has written that WMC has been "coddling" me; these have been accompanied by inflammatory edit summaries. [146] Writing unsupported remarks of this kind seems to be exploiting a loophole in the civility code on wikipedia to make indirect yet non-sanctionable personal attacks on wikipedia. Allegations of a cabal provide an excuse for Abd to disengage from discussion and discredit any criticism during this case.

Abd appears to bear long-term grudges against various administrators

The administrators include JzG, William M. Connolley and Raul654. He has criticized many other administrators since the case began, including the clerk Hersfold.[147]

Abd's escalation of disputes is needless and opportunistic

This was the case already in the Abd & JzG ArbCom case. As with the blacklisting issue, Abd threatened taking the case before ArbCom before going through the normal channels where the community can comment. In this case the community did comment on WP:ANI and multiple administrators and editors, not directly invloved in editing cold fusion or its talk page, endorsed the page-bans. Abd has written that he attempted dispute resolution in this case by trying to involve TenOfAllTrades as a mediator, a misjudged request that was immediately refused [148]. Abd did not then seek another mediator. See also [149]. In his timing of this request, Abd's edits show awareness that WMC has made recent blocks unpopular with a small but vocal group of editors, some under ArbCom sanction.

Abd claims to have scientific expertise but is dismissive and evasive to real-life experts

Abd's edits often unhelpfully dismiss editors with formal scientific training, while claiming familiarity with what's going on in research on low energy nuclear reactions and cold fusion from his reading over the last few months. Real-life experts, eg EdChem and Kirk shanahan in chemistry, are cautious and better placed to evaluate research in fringe areas. Abd has extended discussions of sources with these editors and others, sometimes with impenetrable walls of text which frequently sidetracked onto unrelated issues; he will abruptly abandon the discussion when his point of view is not accepted. [150] [151] On the basis of his userspace essay User:Abd/Majority POV-pushing and other edits, Abd apparently groups together all of those who disagree with his fringe POV-pushing. By dismissing critics as a cabal, the essay seems to be justifying a WP:battleground approach to editing controversial articles on fringe topics. Abd's attempt to make edits in namespace using pseudoscience like hydrino theory[152][153] is pushing wikipedia to its limits.

Abd has tested the limits with banned editors Jed Rothwell and Scibaby

Abd's edits indicate that he has off-wiki contact with the banned editor JedRothwell and discusses the editing of cold fusion; on-wiki Abd has written that this cold fusion advocate is one of the world experts in the area although apparently he and Abd do not always agree (see diffs above). The Scibaby proxy edits have been mentioned by Raul654 on the workshop page.[154] Like Abd's edit-revert tactic on cold fusion after his page-ban, Abd's edits test the limits of WP policy on banned editors; they seem unrelated to building a reliable and authoritative encyclopedia.

Abd appears to be supported by a small tag team

The members seem to be GoRight (talk · contribs) and Coppertwig (talk · contribs). [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] Coppertwig has stated that she/he is willing to act as Abd's interpeter, but this does not seem to have happened in practice since Abd's two page-bans and does not seem a reasonable thing to expect.

Abd has failed to recognize messages from the community or ArbCom

Abd's edits show that he does not recognize that the community upheld his page-ban when Enric Naval opened a discussion on WP:ANI. [173] His edits, including this case itself, also indicate that he has not apparently understood the findings of the Abd & JzG ArbCom case concerning his own actions. After the ArbCom case concluded, much time was wasted discussing lenr-canr.org at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist [174]; it was handled well by Fritzpoll and Dirk Beetstra.

My brief involvement on Talk:Cold fusion has been minimal and constructive

I made a total of 16 edits to this talk page for about 10 posts all related to the use of secondary sources, in particular an essay-review made available as sheldon.pdf on http://mathsci.free.fr.

I have never been part of a cabal before....

[175]Its not as exciting as I thought it would be except of course there is no cabal and this is a classic example of Abd preferring to blame conspiracy and cabalism rather then actually listen to the comments of those that oppose him and take their comments on board. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and Abd clearly shows that they cannot collaborate with users who disagree with them. He is clearly well meaning and dedicated but I implore the arbitration committee to actually look at the impact his behaviour has on those he comes into contact with and do something to stop him harming the work of other editors. Please. Its long overdue.

Abd/GoRight mutual trolling society

GoRight and Abd have on multiple occasions attempted to derail dispute resolution proceedings against the other. That is to say, whenever one of them behaves so badly that the community begins proceedings to reign in disruption from one of them, the other shows up to make supportive comments.

Examples:

• After Abd made comments supportive of GoRight on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GoRight and ANI discussion, GoRight showsed up on a discussion he had never show any interest in to support Abd's advocacy [176]. Then, after Abd was banned, GoRight lobbied to get Abd unbanned [177] [178]
• GoRight supports Abd's claims that Jzg's administrative actions on the cold fusion articles were inappropriate. The arbitration committee later found these accusations meritless and Jzg's actions fully supported by policy.
• GoRight's participation on this very case illustrates the point very clearly. For example, GoRight claims "Abd's statements regarding policy are always backed by the clear text and spirit of the policy in question" when in fact there are many such examples to the contrary. (Such as Abd's claim here that sockpuppets editing arbcom cases do not violate policy, when in fact it is explicitly prohibited: "sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings." --Wikipedia:Sock puppetry) Other than GoRight, not a single person has supported Abd's position on any principle or finding of fact.

There is no conspiracy

When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you - as Abd has discovered. Shot info (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Abd calls a Cabal

Wikipedia calls a Consensus. Abd excludes those whose opinion he doesn't like by labelling them as a cabal. This is a very similar effect to Elonka's tag team essay. When you are in a minority and you don't like what the Community is telling you, you pull out the "You're a Cabal/Tagteam/Conspiracy/etc" and you can then discount the majority. Abd's own response shows this attitude and he continues to wonder why he has problems with developing consensus. As he says here It's about time that tag-teaming is addressed. Who tag teams? Cabals are the only teams that can usually get away with it.

Cold fusion is pseudoscience

Cold fusion is a pseudoscience. A very good review of this teaching is done in Park, Robert L. (2000). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford University Press. p. 230. ISBN ISBN 0-19-513515-6, ISBN 0-19-514710-3, ISBN 0-19-860443-2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help). That our article does not make it clear shows that there is something wrong with the process. Abd not only pushes pseudoscience in the main space but also as I understand has some commercial interests in doing so. I am not follow the development of the article nor the attempts of WMC to restore some normality here but the later were obviously not strong enough to stop the madness.

Cabalism

Regarding the cabal accusations. I do have some off-wiki communications with many editors, some time it might be interpreted as cabalism (although I always stay for my action). I am sure that most of active wikipedians also have some off-wiki communications with others and somehow open to accusations in cabalism. However I can certify that I have no offwiki communications regarding the Cold Fusion article or abd, still I was inserted by abd into his cabal list. That might shed light how credible the list is. If one pushes pseudoscience then not all people who try to stop it are cabal members even if they are numerous. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC refuses to disengage from Abd

• Despite being one of two opposing parties to this case, WMC removed a (quite long) comment of Abd's from Abd's section on the workshop page, and then edit warred to keep it removed:
  • Removal: [179]
  • Edit warring: 1 and 2
  • WMC had previously been warned for that kind of behaviour: [180]
  • He then edited the collapsible box Abd placed around the comment in question: [181].

Misrepresentation of an incident

The vote-moving incident, which represented only a very small bit of the disruption at the cold fusion talk page but has been mentioned in this case by others, has been somewhat misrepresented, especially as to how the incident was blown out of proportion, and by whom. The incident was documented in an AN/I report. I refer to that report for the diffs and for a full account; my purpose here is simply to review how that incident has been mischaracterized.

The action at issue was Abd's move of my vote in his poll from the version I had voted for to a version which he claimed was the version I'd really intended to vote for. In an edit at 3:48, June 5 I objected to the move, struck my vote and its comment, and provided the diff of my vote which showed clearly that I had voted for the version I said I'd voted for and had intended to vote for. Then I took a break.

Abd's account of what happened next, repeated in several places, is at odds with the historical record. In a very long response at AN/I (which he later removed entirely from the page, leaving the record incomplete as archived) he repeated this claim: "I was definitely, for a while, quite confused, with one edit conflict with Woonpton after another." ... "Woonpton and I were in edit conflict after edit conflict as I tried to figure out what the editor wanted and to restore and undo any damage that I might have done." ... "This was all a transient misunderstanding, but, probably due to some prior and very strange conflict, it blew up quickly."''

The facts are these: I edited at 3:48 when I objected to the vote move, and didn't edit again until 4:51. The incident was indeed "blown up quickly," but the page history shows that between my edits of 3:48 and 4:51, the only person editing the page was Abd, who made seven edits to the page during that time, removing the struck comment that was appended to my vote, leaving the vote in place at the wrong version, then making an edit with the edit summary "Woonpton appears to have accepted the move" and then in another post explainingthat I was confused and had voted for the wrong version and that he'd placed my vote where it belonged, and even arguing that the version he had moved my vote to was an obviously better version than the one I had actually voted for. Nothing in this flurry of unilateral activity suggests that Abd was trying to "figure out what the editor wanted" and to undo the damage. Eventually he realized that the mistake was his, not mine, and that I had indeed voted for the version I said I'd voted for, but the misunderstanding could have been sorted out immediately rather than more than an hour later, if he'd just clicked on that diff instead of editing furiously to maintain the misunderstanding.

I withdrew my votes at that point and withdrew from the talk page citing a loss of faith in the integrity of the process.

As for Abd's comment (quoted above) that "due to some prior and very strange conflict, it blew up quickly" this "very strange conflict" he alludes to was no conflict at all, but a simple difference of opinion about the delegable proxy business from last year, which I hadn't even heard of until a month or two ago. He and I see that episode very differently, but I hardly see that as a "very strange conflict;" it's just a difference of opinion.

Response to Coppertwig: I'm not sure the statement that Abd's ban was triggered by this incident is supported by evidence; the announcement on AN/I of the ban stated that the ban was unrelated to the AN/I incident report; WMC to my knowledge has not mentioned this incident in his statements about the ban, and the chaos he found at the talk page that precipitated the bans was not related to this incident as far as I can tell.

State of the cold fusion talk page before the ban of Abd and Hippocrite

Following the above incident, and after I left the talk page, Abd moved the poll and the comments around [182][183]. Mathsci and Verbal objected to his actions re the poll [184] and Abd responded accusing Mathsci and Verbal of pushing an "anti-fringe agenda" and getting in the way of Abd's consensus-gathering process. "Don't like the poll above? You are not obligated to participate, nobody is. But please stop trying to disrupt efforts to determine consensus here."

Abd explained here what he was trying to do with the poll: My goal in this poll was to quickly estimate consensus. Range polling can be faster for this purpose than Yes/No polling, though it often reduces to the same if people just vote max (10) or min (0). The whole point of such a device is to avoid debate. This is standard in deliberative process for motions where debating the motion would defeat the purpose of the motion.

There were more objections to Abd's poll process and methodology [185][186][187] [188], to his repeated moving of comments and sections [189][190] which made it difficult to follow the discussion, and to his misinterpretation of a vote [191]. There was a call to close the poll which Abd responded to by saying that a poll could not be closed except by an administrator.

Hippocrite then started a new poll. Abd put the two polls together, which made no sense from a measurement standpoint because they were scored differently. There were complaints about this action and about the accuracy and complexity of the matrix Abd put together to compare the versions. Abd also removed two options from the poll, both of which he had added to the poll after voting had started: the one I voted for, and the one Abd claimed I really voted for.

The disruption over the polls continued in the same vein for another 24 hours before WMC put a stop to it. (In the 48 hours before the bans, there were 134 edits to the page, almost all of them about the polls --65 by Abd and 16 by Hippocrite; in the 48 hours following the bans, there were 25 edits to the page, mostly about the article). At the time of WMC's decision, the polls [192] [193] were a mess; there would have been no reasonable way to draw conclusions about consensus from them. Abd has claimed as evidence in this case [194] that there was a version that had consensus that WMC should have reverted to; it's unclear to me how WMC could have intuited any consensus from these polls.

About cabal membership: I was surprised to find myself identified as a member of a Wikipedia cabal, although my family and friends have found it enormously amusing. I think one would actually have to be an editor of Wikipedia in order to be a member of a tag team, is it not so? I haven't edited Wikipedia since I realized, early on (spring of 2008) that editing Wikipedia, for someone whose main interest is the areas where science and superstition meet, means being in constant conflict with advocates of fringe theories, and I didn't see that as a good use of my time. Since then, I have observed, making a comment once in a great while. The reasons for the inordinate amount of attention paid to me here seem to be that I voted in Abd's poll and objected to his moving my vote, that I disagreed with him about delegable proxy on MastCell's talk page, and that I submitted evidence for this case. A pretty thin thread to hang a cabal member on, I must say.

About responding to Abd in general: I have not read Abd's response to my evidence and do not intend to, since if recent experience is any guide, there would be numerous things that would require counterargument, and there's not space here or time enough in my life to continue this debate. I believe my evidence speaks for itself; it is solidly rooted in diffs which actually say what I say they say. I hope it's helpful to ArbCom, but I won't go through endlessly arguing it back and forth with Abd in order to defend the points I've made here. I don't like conflict; that's why I don't edit Wikipedia. I don't like useless discussions that focus on irrelevant details rather than keeping to the point, and never get anywhere but just go around in circles; that's why I try to avoid discussions with Abd. If ArbCom hasn't grasped what the problem is just from reading the case, adding more text to the miles of text already present here isn't going to help, and would be inconsiderate of the committee as well as a great waste of my time. Thank you for the opportunity to present evidence here.

Abd edits with an agenda, rather than to improve articles

Back in January, one of my first contacts with Abd was this comment on my talk page. The final sentence is quite interesting, "Some of us, with some administrative support, have been moving slowly and cautiously to undo the damage from some recent actions that seem to be promoting an anti-fringe agenda, but to do this without disruption takes time." Abd has been thinking in terms of cabals for quite some time, and rather than focusing on improving articles he is pursuing an anti-"anti-fringe agenda" agenda. This quote also illustrates another common Abd behavior: in a vague, non-quantifiable way he claims that he has substantial support for his actions.

Abd persists in mischaraterizing the evidence, even after errors are pointed out

One of the key references used in the Cold Fusion article is the summary of the 2004 DOE report, which contains a quote that the "reviewers were split approximately evenly" on the question of excess heat. Abd thought that a majority thought something was anomolous; I responded that in actuality the split was even. Some time later, in another thread, Abd says of the 2004 report, "But I think a majority also considered that the F effect was real, i.e., that there was more heat than expected..." Another correction of fact was needed. He proceeded to repeat the error here (last paragraph).

Abd is not accurately describing his own actions within this case - see Jed Rothwell edits

Abd's description of his own actions, taken from the Workshop page: [195] "Spartaz, rarely, (once or twice?) I restored Talk page comments from IP edits signed as "Jed Rothwell." All of the comments I restored were helpful to the project, in my opinion, that's why I restored them. I was reverted and didn't insist, even though the reversion of me was actually improper." What actually happened:

Jed Rothwell made a signed edit, Verbal reverted him with the summary, "Reverted to revision 284489199 by Abd; rm banned user."

1 Abd reverts Verbal to restore Rothwell text A discussion of this reversion begins on Abd's Talk page, including objections to this behavior.

Coppertwig restores Rothwell text- Abd alleges that Mastcell's block was done 'as indicated by JzG' and is therefore invalid

2 Abd reverts Enric to restore Rothwell text. Enric objects, Abd is not receptive, and posts the Rothwell comment to his talk page

3 Abd adds a link to Rothwell text to Talk:Cold Fusion

4 Abd adds a link to Rothwell text to Talk:Cold Fusion

5 Abd adds a link to Rothwell text to Talk:Cold Fusion

I count five revisions by Abd made with the intent to add the Rothwell text, and I would not consider his description that he 'didn't insist' to be an accurate summation of his actions, especially in light of these three edits to Verbal's talk page.

WMC was an involved editor on Cold Fusion in January 2006.

He reverted to a version that was about 15 months old at the time - possibly the most significant single edit ever made to the page. (See the talk announcing his edit.)

He made more edits around that time. [196][197][198][199][200][201][202] and some Talk page edits [203][204][205][206][207][208]

Does involvement with an article expire? I don't know, but I thought it should be mentioned and perhaps clarified.

Disclosure: I voted against making WMC an admin.

I don't want to repeat the evidence given by Enric, Mathsci, and WMC above so I will limit myself to something I don't think has been covered so far. Verbal chat 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd follows editors with whom he is in dispute

Here are some examples of articles where I was already an established editor, which Abd came to in order to disagree with my edits, and that were outside of his previous editing areas: Talk:Psychic, Talk:Cold reading, Talk:Waldorf education. He also followed Enric to Talk:Oppenheimer–Phillips process to disagree with him there.

More worryingly, he inserted himself in a rather obvious sockpuppet report against User:Macromonkey's sock User:Micromonkey. This editor had not edited any pages apart from my talk page that Abd was active on, and I don't see how he became aware of the SPI report. The message Abd left for micromonkey was also rather uncivil towards me, and full of assertions and policy interpretations: diff. Note how all of Abd's assertions about what would happen and wikipedia policy turned out to be false. This seems to be a pattern in his behaviour. In his defence, he did self revert sometime later after realising he'd backed the wrong horse. Verbal chat 14:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abd is attracted to conflict and "stirs the pot"

Due to my dealings with Abd, and for many of the reasons stated above, I had asked Abd not to have contact with me. "Abd, I appreciate it if you avoided all contact with me. Thanks".[209] My wishes were clear, after all there was a whole thread on the issue which he participated in.[210] I had heard nothing from Abd in months, yet after my first 3R block, Abd comments on my talk page. My response to Abd was used as justification to file a Wikiquette_alert. [211] Further, a serious false accusation he made during a topic ban request, was picked up by other contributors , and was used as eventual justification for Arbitration.[212]

makes serious false accusations and then doesn't admit his transgression

As noted above Abd had made a serious false accusation but never truly commented on the evidence he presented.[213] Hold his feet to the fire this time around. If he has made a false accusation that has disrupted wikipedia in a major way, make sure he responds to requests for clarification. I respectfully request the arbitrators to insist upon a response if he avoids the direct questioning of his accusations from other parties in this case.

Accommodation for ADHD

ADHD may lead someone to make impulsive and emotional responses. In my dealings with Abd, he is no more impulsive or emotional with his responses then the average contributor. Those with ADHD may also be verbose. Abd is verbose, yet he can be succinct when he chooses to be. The impulse to "go on and on" may be appealing to him in that moment, yet once he has done so, through the use of computer editing functions he can make his responses shorter and more readable. This shortcoming was the major reason I asked him not communicate with me. I didn't have the time to read his responses, and he had a way of personalizing these screeds with unnecessary judgments and words of advice. It's a frustrating experience communicating with him, and he refused to change, even after multiple requests. It would be my opinion that he willfully chooses to continue this behaviour.

A response to Abd's August 7th draft comments [214]

The point Abd, was that I had asked you point blank to avoid contact with me. That lasted for months, and then you post on my talk page immediately after my first 3R. Granted that could be sheer coincidence, you forgot or what not, but could this be more like a moth drawn to light? Drama hit my talk page and Abd was there in an instant, no matter what state our relationship was in. How many arbitrations has he been involved with recently? I've seen three since the early summer, perhaps there have been more. How many dispute resolution and sanction events? Who knows...

False accusations should be taken seriously by this arbitration. His accusation that I alone drove away a highly abusive psychiatrist was obviously false.[215] Abd has never even acknowledged that what he did was wrong, at either the: Topic ban proposal, ADHD arbitration, or now.

I haven't examined this arbitration closely. Still, if past behaviour predicts future behaivour, odds are that he has "stirred the pot" once more. He has likely done so in a number of ways,...including false accusations. Odds are, as in his response to me, there will be a flurry of counter accusations and personal judgments on those who point out his failings. Few will notice that he never acknowledges when he is being disingenuous, even when others go to great lengths to point this out directly. I'd bet no one will get an answer as to why he bore false witness unless the arbitrators hold his feet to the fire.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.