Initiated by Abd ( talk) at 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Abd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Mathsci ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Abd

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

The immediate occasion is this statement on the case page. I was definitely involved with the situation under the Climate Change request. My view is that this led William M. Connolley to take an opportunity to ban me, which explains his otherwise puzzling behavior as being based on a grudge. I presented evidence, expanded at [6], on WMC's wheel-warring at Global warming as part of the subject case. When I'd worked on Global warming, I encountered the very problems that led to the current request, and can provide diffs if needed.

Therefore I considered myself already involved in the substance, hence mentor approval was not needed, even though I was not a formally named party yet. I was surprised, then, to see this objection from Mathsci appear on my Talk. As I have knowledge in depth of the underlying situation, I believed it my obligation to testify, in any case, so I declined to comply. Apparently seeing the discussion, MastCell then filed an Arbitration enforcement request, and a request to a clerk to remove my comment. Mathsci commented extensively, [7] [8] [9], adding confusion (incorrect about the history, apparently assuming I'd misrepresented it), and continuing after the post had been removed and it was moot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please look, as well, at the tendentious behavior of other editors around this, most particularly William M. Connolley, and Mathsci's pursuit of an old vendetta, not related to the case in question. [that is, not related to global warming. It is related to the case on which clarification is sought. 04:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)] I have no significant complaint about MastCell but included him because he may wish to comment. -- Abd ( talk) 00:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

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

Statement by LessHeard vanU

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

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

Statement by Mathsci

• Abd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GoRight ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYB indicated to me in an email response that he hoped that MastCell's WP:AE request would clarify matters without ArbCom involvement. Before Abd's surprise public request here, I assumed that things had been clarified to everybody's satisfaction. I apologize that further time has to be spent on what should have been an entirely straightforward matter. Thanks in advance and Happy New Year to all! Mathsci ( talk) 02:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

LHVU has given a slightly muddle-headed statement. I am not in dispute with Abd, any more than MastCell is. Both of us have been involved in pointing out Abd's contravention of his editing restrictions. Abd has just come off a three month ArbCom ban and so far has shown no sign of returning to normal editing patterns, quite the contrary. As far as I am aware, I am a good faith editor in good standing. LHVU should not repeat Abd's innuendos without checking facts for himself. Abd's account and interpretation are not accurate. His misleading use of the word "vendetta" could not be supported by one diff. Just like the nonsense he wrote about a "cabal". Mathsci ( talk) 02:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I had planned to request clarification and then saw the present request.

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

Statement by Durova

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

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

The most objectionable practice of the 2009 ArbCom was phantom mentorship: writing mentorship into arbitration remedies where no actual volunteer agreed to fill the role. Abd was one of the people caught in that bind. This request for clarification offers a golden opportunity to correct that problem by rewriting the remedy to return mentorship where it functions best: in the background. Durova ³⁹⁰ 03:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Re: MastCell's statement, his cynicism is a case in point for why mentorship becomes so difficult as an element of arbitration decisions. When a mentorship occurs informally the focus is on its results: does behavior actually improve? Some editors choose mentors well and others choose badly. That shakes itself out. The one essential element that can't be forced is mutual trust. My suggestion is to wish Abd well with his new mentor because that appears to be the only mentor available to him, and either remove mentorship from the formal remedy or rename it, because what it appears the decision was seeking was not a mentor but a screener to preapprove specific kinds of posts. The latter might be a good idea but it isn't mentorship. Durova ³⁹⁰ 04:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by MastCell

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

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

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

Statement by GoRight

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

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

Motion

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

Statement by Enric Naval

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

-- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

• I believe this has passed at 8-0 with 2 abstentions. (Majority would be 9 if not for the abstains.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motion

Remedy 3.2 "Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)" is revised to read:

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

Support

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

Oppose

Abstain

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

Arbitrator discussion

Clerk notes

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:

• William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Abd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified: [10])

Statement by your name

Abd's involvement in AFD appears to rise to an infrigement of his ban, e.g. the discussion here [11]: 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 [12].

@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

• Abd, while blocked, has posted additional responses and statements regarding this issue, and particularly regarding the current block. That statement is posted at User Talk:Abd#Statement in re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley. If there's some means of transcluding it, or if it should be copied directly instead, please do so - I post the link here on Abd's behalf, because I said I would while declining his unblock request yesterday. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC). 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, [13], or at the article itself, [14], 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. [15] 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 [16]. 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 [17]. Tznkai (the admin in the AE thread) has told Abd that this one is a violation of the ban [18]. 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 [19] [20] [21]. 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 [22]. 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 [23] and in the VORTEX-L mailing list [24]. 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 [25]. 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 [26]. 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

Initiated by Abd ( talk) at 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of this request, and acceptance of injunction against further comment by Abd on the current case, pending outcome of AE request.

Statement by Abd

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

Statement by Sandstein

This is related to the open enforcement request at WP:AE#Result concerning Abd. The question asked at some length above is whether my interpretation proposed there of "originating party" in Abd's restriction is correct. I appreciate any guidance by arbitrators on that matter. So as not to complicate matters further, I have asked Abd not to continue his current dispute in any venue before the request for arbitration enforcement is resolved.  Sandstein  21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC) reply

I have noted in the AE thread that Abd has agreed to abide by the meaning of the sanction as explained below by Fut. Perf. until such time as ArbCom makes a different decision. Given this, I've also noted that I don't think that enforcement action remains required at this time, and I've no opinion about whether, under these circumstances, this clarification request remains necessary.  Sandstein  06:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by SamJohnston

This is utterly ridiculous. Abd has been explicitly forbidden from engaging in this behaviour and is just off the back of a three month ban. The fact there is any question whatsoever that the original editing restriction was blatantly and repeatedly violated is incomprehensible to me. This editor deserves to be blocked - for me it's just a question of how long for. -- samj _in ^out 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

After a more thorough review it is absolutely clear that the intention of the editing restriction was to prevent exactly this type of situation from recurring. Attempting to "clarify" the restriction is either an attempt to work in a loophole that would effectively make it meaningless or an attempt to avoid requested enforcement (or both). In any case it's obviously wikilawyering and the exception should be interpreted narrowly (as it was intended). Conversely, "clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent" with good reason - the restriction itself was intended to apply broadly to any debate about any topic where User:Abd was not an "originating party". I hope we don't have to clarify the meaning of "originating party" as seems fairly self explanatory - however User:Abd's claim of "originating party" status in the LirazSiri situation ought to be explicitly rejected (Update: and has been, here). -- samj _in ^out 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC) reply

User:GoRight raises a good point about the interpretation of "originating party" (what we would typically call a "plaintiff") in that the scope should be *expanded* to include disputes where Abd is named (e.g. "defendant"). User:Future Perfect at Sunrise summarises it nicely below: The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you. -- samj _in ^out 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

P.S. Warning an active spammer/vandal that you'll nominate their article for deletion at AfD if they don't chill out is not "off-wiki harassment". This is off-wiki harassment. And despite all the usual hand waving, finger pointing, wikilawyering, etc. this clarification is the direct result of Abd turning routine cleanup after a career conflicted editor into a multi-venue, multi-editor dispute. Quoting JzG: "It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it." -- samj _in ^out 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

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

• Abd made some kind of commitment to Sandstein, which he has just withdrawn, [29] a few hours after his block. He appears to be threatening to start an RfAr concerning FPaS's block. Hopefully this threat of further disruption and time-wasting can be nipped in the bud by either ArbCom or the community. Mathsci ( talk)

Statement by (uninvolved, but Abd disagrees) Stephan Schulz

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

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I have offered the following clarification to Abd [30], and intend to enforce it as long as Arbcom doesn't provide a different decision:

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

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

As Abd has continued to breach the restriction on this very page, by continuing his comments about the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston, in terms that amount to personal attacks [31], I have blocked him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Aside from TenOfAllTrades

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

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

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

Observation from uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris

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

Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I agree with Fut. Perf. and would endorse enforcement to that effect based on the wording of this restriction. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 09:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

As stated, I've endorsed the block. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by Enric Naval

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

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

Abd is also making unwarranted analogies, like comparing himself with a man that is trying to rescue his spouse and children from a fire [32].

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

Statement by GoRight

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

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

FP then responded with a rather predictable stance:

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

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

"You simply assert that you are correct. I simply assert that you are incorrect, FP. Who's right? Where has Arbcom indicated that your interpretation is correct?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FP's current block of Abd: I have opened an AN report here. -- GoRight ( talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Unsigned edits in sections written by others: I note the following [33] which was placed in a section written by Abd but was unsigned which makes it appear as though Abd wrote it. Perhaps the author or a clerk could move this comment into the author's own section to avoid confusion on this point? Thanks. -- GoRight ( talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by typically disinterested Badger Drink

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

Statement by Spartaz

The tumbleweed seems to be blowing through the arbitrators# section. Does this mean:-

1. The arbs are all fed up with anything and everything Abd related and can't bring themselves to respond
2. The arbs are furiously arguing about the appropriate motion on their mailing list
3. The arbs are supremely indifferent
4. All of the above.

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

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Initiated by Enric Naval ( talk) at 16:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

• Enric Naval ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Abd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)

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

• latest request for clarification of this restriction

Statement by Enric Naval

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

However, now he is trying to insert himself into the dispute by completely removing a contentious lead paragraph that has been under heavy discussion, asserting that "lede should enjoy the highest level of consensus, remove controversial paragraph, not necessary for overview of "ghosts." Lede is fine without it." [34], and removing the talkpage box that warns about the Pseudoscience arbitration restrictions "remove pseudoscience arbitration notes, this is not a pseudoscience article by Wikipedia standards. Make the cat stick first!" [35]. He performed the removals after commenting in the RfC, and he hasn't made any comments on the talk page about any of the two removals. I warned him after his first edit [36], and he replied that it was the first time that his ban was applied to article edits [37] (as opposed to being applied only to talk pages).

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

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

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

Adendum: Well, damn, I hadn't noticed [38], which is a straight-forward violation of his ban. I'll make a separate request in AE for that diff. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 06:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

Statement by Abd

History archive of original response by Abd

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by SamJohnston

If you break it down this appears to be fairly straightforward:

• Was there an existing dispute? Yes
• Did Abd discuss the dispute? Yes (unsigned)
• Was Abd an originating party? No.

I don't believe that confining commentary to edit summaries and/or new threads evades the restriction because it includes, but is not limited to talk pages et al. That said, the editing restriction is intended to avoid inflaming disputes, not prevent Abd from editing altogether (we have blocks for that). With this interpretation Abd would be able to edit provided he avoided hotspots and raised his own new issues as required. -- samj _in ^out 02:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Again boiling it down to basics, Abd started editing Ghost, contributed to existing content disputes here and here (so much for a single "inadvertent" violation), removed controversial content actively being discussed from the article and talk page here and here and the article was protected for Edit warring / Content dispute the very next day. He then made a similar controversial edit to the Witchcraft article, where the same topic was also an existing debate. To quote Hans Adler: "He tried to help, but he wasn't helpful".

The loopholes used to justify participation in the existing conflicts were a) article edits, b) edit summaries and c) polls. These should be closed by clarification (even if just by requiring Abd to avoid active areas). -- samj _in ^out 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

GoRight's condescending " clarification" doesn't warrant further comment - he won't WP:HEAR it anyway. -- samj _in ^out 08:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Statement by Verbal

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

Comment by Hans Adler

Original comment

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

Comment by GoRight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Responses:

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

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

Comment by Mathsci

Why can't Abd find something innocuous to edit just for once? Mathsci ( talk) 02:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

@ Carcharoth: I imagine that most users at this stage, myself included, would avoid initiating any kind of sanction against Abd, simply because of the total drain on time that would result. Mathsci ( talk) 18:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC) reply

@Carcharoth. You seem to be criticizing me below for writing - in a 12 word sentence - essentially exactly the same thing you wrote about Abd's editing. The main point in my evidence to the ArbCom case concerned Abd's return to mainstream content editing. That is still my hope now. Why are you suggesting otherwise? Mathsci ( talk) 02:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

@Carcharoth. Are you now suggesting that at some point I have edited a contentious article? Is this really what you intended to write? Please remember that the problematic editor here is Abd. You, I and others might hope that his editing patterns will improve; but in the end Abd is the only one responsible for what he chooses to edit. Please be more careful what you write. Mathsci ( talk) 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Observation by TenOfAllTrades

GoRight has been a consistent apologist for Abd's disruptive conduct since at least the Abd/WMC Arbitration. GoRight's encouragement and endorsement is absolutely the last thing that Abd needs. Further, GoRight has been repeatedly blocked recently for his own counterproductive approach to Wikipedia editing. His attacks on Enric Naval isn't pretty, either ( [40], [41], [42], [43])— complaints about other editors' 'harassment' of Abd might be more credible if GoRight didn't seem so prepared to overlook and enable Abd's misconduct. It's well past tiresome; a MYOB restriction on GoRight would not be out of place.

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

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

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

I feel that it is entirely proper for me to comment about the actions taken by Arbitrators as part of their participation in this Request for Clarification. I have struck out any mention of particular problematic editors' conduct, though I do still believe that it is perfectly within scope for the ArbCom, as part of a Clarification, to comment on the conduct of editors seeking to enforce (or not) an Arbitration remedy in the lead up to the Request.

I am not comfortable with suppressing mention of what I feel are valid points related to the processes followed by Arbitrators in responding to this Request. I will note that my only participation in or comment on the extant dispute here was my brief comment above. I have had nothing to do with any of the other discussions in any of the other fora, and I don't believe posting a seven-sentence note – even if arguably tangential – constitutes an abuse of the ArbCom's time or attention. I have affirmed that I would support a proper MYOB restriction if brought in an appropriate venue, however I object to Carcharoth attempting to implement one himself on this one page. (I observe that at least one other Request on this page contains an explicit request for a motion to which Carcharoth responded positively.)

I do not give permission or approval for anyone to make edits to my signed comments on this page, however I recognize when I'm outgunned, and I won't edit war with a clerk or Arb — so don't go getting silly ideas about needing to issue blocks. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

@Agreed with those above. Abd, it's best for you to find somewhere quiet and uncontroversial to work at this time. SirFozzie ( talk) 06:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Abd ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Georgewilliamherbert ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified.
• JzG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified.
• Pcarbonn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified.

Statement by Abd

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

This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions, [44], based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developments

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

Statement by other JzG

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

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

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

But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy ( Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Incidentally, Abd's trotting out yet again of the "blacklisting abuse" meme, a point refuted a thousand times, is further evidence that with Abd there is no way any issue can ever be settled other than by giving him what he wants. There was no "damage". Lenr-canr is a fringe advocacy site littered with copyright violations and repeatedly spammed by its owner and, after his banning, by Pcarbonn and Abd proxying for him. Neither denies being on friendly terms with Rothwell. This is why dealing with Abd is, quite literally, impossible: there is no known way to get him to drop something once he has it in his head. Ever. Guy ( Help!) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by Georgewilliamherbert

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

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

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

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

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

Noting for the record - Future Perfect at Sunrise issued a 2 week block based on the issue I raised above about the blacklist talk page. [49]. A unblock request was denied by Stephan Schultz, with some subsequent discussion. It is somewhat unusual for parties or appellants to be blocked during discussion, so I believe it should be in the record here that it's happened. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 19:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Note from TenOfAllTrades

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

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

• Moved to the amendments page. NW ( Talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

WP:NOTBUREAU. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC) reply

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