Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2/Workshop/Motions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Hipocrite and Mathsci are added as parties

[edit]

1) Please add the following parties:

*Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This addition is solely with respect to actions related to the ban of Abd from Cold fusion, the underlying causes or conditions, or the use of administrative tools by William M. Connolley, while involved or showing favoritism, in this or other incidents.
Comment by Arbitrators:
I haven't reviewed the case in enough detail yet to know whether any additional parties should be added. However, at this point, I believe that all the editors who have been listed are on notice that the case exists and that their names have been mentioned, so that they can provide evidence if they wish. If any formal additions or changes to the list of parties are warranted, the arbitrators working on the draft decision will presumably follow up; the key point being that no party be mentioned in a decision or subject to criticism or sanction without fair notice and an opportunity to be heard. Please note that any editor with useful input is invited to make a statement at the accept-or-decline stage, so the suggestion that an editor's having urged us to decline the case warrants his addition as a party is unwarranted. I would also note that while the convention has developed of leaving parties' statements on the case page and moving non-parties' statements to the talkpage, this does not have substantive significance, and where the clerks wind up leaving someone's statement does not govern who the parties are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that Hipocrite retired from editing, for unrelated reasons, three weeks ago now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
  • Proposed. A number of involved editors commented extensively on the Request page, showing strong support for banning they had previously advocated, and for the rejection of this case as frivolous. I have not presented evidence of this beyond their own display on the Request page, however, that should be sufficient to establish a risk to them of admonishment or sanction, and therefore of their right to notice and special participation as parties. The above editors were added to the list of parties by me, before the acceptance of the Request, and were notified, but Mathsci edit warred to remove his name, and William M. Connolley reverted Hipocrite's insertion, then edit warred at User talk:Hipocrite over the notice, which seems to have been a last-straw incident leading to the retirement of Rootology. These parties Hipocrite should be added and their comments restored to the Request page, and notice to Hipocrite should be restored as well.
  • Hipocrite did not comment on the Request page, having "retired," but previously retired under a cloud, returned, was extraordinarily disruptive while active, and was the primary cause of the two recent protections of Cold fusion and thus of the actions of WMC leading to this case, aside from whatever prior agenda WMC may have had. --Abd (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having now realized that it's reasonable to consider the case accepted when there were four net votes, instead of when acceptance was declared and the case pages set up, and for simplicity, I have withdrawn the proposed motion to add Mathsci, and I ask that Verbal and Stephan Schulz's comments be removed from the Request page, unless they desire to be parties, and I apologize to the committee and the community for disruption that resulted. (It would have been quite enough if someone had suggested to me: once there were four net votes, the case was to be considered accepted and no changes made -- and this should be made clear in general.
  • To Bilby. Hipocrite was centrally involved in the events leading up to the ban, as evidence will show, and I do not believe that a voluntary, reversible, very recent retirement should be suffice to exclude oneself from consideration. It was an error for me not to include Hipocrite from the start. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Mathsci. The other names were removed by Ryan yesterday, but the clerk overlooked the moving of non-party arguments to Talk. Evidence will show that Hipocrite created the disruption allowing WMC's intervention at Cold fusion, pursuing an agenda that WMC favors. Hipocrite accepted the ban because banning me was his goal, and the dual bans gave WMC cover. --Abd (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Newyorkbrad. I agree that the list of named parties may be moot, because of notice provided already. No claim was made that, simply by urging denial of the case, editors should be added to it; the additional editors named by me were, in fact, involved in the underlying events; other editors urged denial and were not added. Two issues remain that are not moot.
  • Hipocrite's notice was removed by a party to this case, so if Hipocrite reviews his Talk page, he may not see the notice. The notice should be replaced pending resolution of this case.
  • As to the comments left in place, leaving non-party comments prejudices the record; there are good reasons for the practice of removal, and it was only an accident that they were not. All other statements were removed, and the two in question only remain because, at that point, they were listed as named parties. --Abd (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
  • I'm quite opposed to expanding the list of involved parties at this point. Hipocrite, being retired, is unable to be involved in proceedings, and therefore cannot present his case. I agree that he was involved in the events, but I'd be very uncomfortable with including someone in his situation, and in my view that involvement was not central to what is being discussed here. In regard to MathSci, he has strong opinions about Abd, as expressed, but the case is in regard to Abd and WMC's actions. It's likely to be messy enough as it is - it would be far better to keep to focus as narrow as possible. - Bilby (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that Abd email ArbCom directly requesting the removal by the clerks of the other names which he added to the list. If Hipocrite has retired and nobody has so far mentioned problems with his behaviour that need to be examined, why add his name? Please drop the motion entirely to keep things simple. Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm opposed to the adding of MathSci as unnecessary expanding the scope, and the focus should remain on WMC admin actions and Abd's general behaviour - the central concerns. Hipocrite I'm less concerned about, he was heavily involved, but as he's disabled email and retired after an argument with Jimbo it would seem a bit pointless now - and since Abd didn't include him originally, error or not the case wasn't taken with H as a party. Also, he accepted WMCs actions and wasn't then involved with Abd's behaviour. Like Bilby, I think these two editors are not central to the issues presented by Abd or raised in the comments. I'd also ask Abd to tone down his rhetoric a bit (eg "Evidence will show that..."), thanks. I also don't see why my comment, or any others, should be removed - leaving a comment doesn't mean you become a party to the case. Verbal chat 14:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support the addition of User:Hipocrite as he was a central player in all of these events. His behavior at Cold Fusion was disruptive and provocative. His actions directly led to the issue at hand, regardless of whether those actions were premeditated with a specific agenda or simply the result of poor judgment. The treatment of User:Hipocrite in comparison to the treatment of User:Abd by User:William M. Connolley should be examined to shed light on User:William M. Connolley's state of mind regarding User:Abd and his level of objectivity in this case. An examination of whether or not User:William M. Connolley acted in support of User:Hipocrite in some way, whether wittingly or unwittingly, also seems relevant to this case. --GoRight (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    RE: "I don't think this should distract everyone from the issues of behaviors of these two editors interactions with each other." - The scope of the case is, as I understand it, whether WMC's use of his administrative privileges was appropriate, or not, as well as Abd's editing that led up to the ban in question. Since the ban WMC issued covered BOTH Abd and Hipocrite it seems appropriate to examine his application of the ban on all parties involved, not just one, as this may reveal an underlying bias.
  • I really don't think others should be added to this case. The scope of this case from what I'm being told is Abd's editing behavior and whether WMC was involved or not. As for the comment "The treatment of User:Hipocrite in comparison to the treatment of User:Abd by User:William M. Connolley should be examined to shed light on User:William M. Connolley's state of mind regarding User:Abd and his level of objectivity in this case. An examination of whether or not User:William M. Connolley acted in support of User:Hipocrite in some way, whether wittingly or unwittingly, also seems relevant to this case." I don't think this should distract everyone from the issues of behaviors of these two editors interactions with each other. --CrohnieGalTalk 15:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the scope of the case to cover Abd's behaviour over the last two years

[edit]

2) Apart from the ban itself and the issues surrounding it, this case should also cover Abd's overall approach to dispute resolution, including how Abd's conduct has evolved in the last two years, to understand why he is returning to Arbcom as a party in another dispute with another admin in the same article, just three months after the Abd and JzG case, and why one month ago WMC's page ban was so resoundingly endorsed by the community, to the point of WP:SNOW. The last case already advised and urged Abd to take heed to good-faith advice, but Abd has decided that Arbcom had backed all of his views and that it only decided to give him "some good advice", see here.

The evidence here shows a pattern of repeated complaints about meatpuppeting, too long comments, bad faith assumptions, confrontational editing, etc, issued by many unrelated editors from many different POVs over many months about many topics, ranging from harsh criticism to terse expositions of problems, and it's worrying that, when faced with very recent examples of the criticized behaviour, Abd saw no problem in his editing here. I also stated here that I have only scratched the surface of all the complaints and advice given to him over years.

This case should decide if Abd has been taking heed of all that advice, if he is willing to start doing so now, if Abd even acknowledges that he has a problem with his editing (as in "the first step is admitting that you have a problem"), if Abd is going to keep thinking that there is really a cabal, if Abd will keep thinking that anyone opposing him is either part of the cabal or misguided or wrong, and if a full ban or an extremely strict edit restriction is going to be the only way to stop him to stop that part of his behaviour which is highly disruptive.

If the case closes without addressing this, then I predict that Abd will be swiftly community banned in ANI in a short time, in a drama-filled thread which will leave a bad impression in many editors who have been helped by Abd and who won't understand all the complicated issues surrounding the situation. I also predict that Abd will claim that him not being banned means that Arbcom thinks that he is right, which will only confuse more those editors that trust Abd.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Past tomorrow I will start expanding the warnings list with more diffs so arbs can weigh just how many editors have given Abd advice on what to change and why, and to show that the advice given to him by the end of 2007 is the same that has been given to him very recently, and the same that has been given to him regularly over almost two years. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that I don't want to cover the events that caused the warnings, I want to cover how not taking heed to all those warnings has brought Abd to the current situation of being banned from an article that he wants to edit, and brought him twice in front of Arbcom in three months. I note that Abd is now directly stating that the advice given to him by me is incorrect, I think that it's up for the arbs to look at the warnings by other editors I collected and decide if they fit my own advice and if they address correctly Abd's conduct in the cold fusion article.
About being unfair to Abd, notice that WMC's administrative actions have been already brought to the community and been widely endorsed by it, while Abd's conduct has been widely criticized by the community over a long time and not just in the cold fusion article, so it's perfectly appropiate to ask that we examine Abd's behaviour in more depth, even if causes complaints of unfairness. Also, Arbcom is supposed to solve the problems that the community can't solve, the community has not found a problem with WMC's administrative conduct, but it has found a problem with Abd's editing. (Arbcom is supposed to have teeth, you see, it's the last recourse on WP:DR, and it shouldn't have to avoid addressing clear problems for fear of looking unfair, arbs should have clear by now that any outcome negative towards Abd is going to be claimed to be unfair anyways, regardless of what they actually do)
Tomorrow I was going to start gathering more evidence, so, I'll be in a better position to show if this motion is warranted or not. If arbs raise issues about the motion, I'll see if I can address them with a better-worded motion, with better evidence, or if I should abandon this motion. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Enric is seeking to drastically expand this case to cover every possible error -- or courageous action -- I might have taken over the last two years. Remember, the "advice" offered me, so many times, has been quite incorrect. Subsequently, my positions have often been confirmed, either by ArbComm or by editorial consensus. JzG did act while involved. His blacklistings were improper. The blacklist was being used to control content. The link to lenr-canr.org at Martin Fleischmann was accepted. Except for one withdrawn page (which may be resubmitted, I have new evidence on it), and in spite of strong efforts from a number of editors whose comments appear in this case, every page from lenr-canr.org that I submitted for whitelisting was accepted. Newenergytimes.com was delisted. The "proposed explanations" for cold fusion -- there are many, and a few of the theories are covered in multiple reliable secondary sources, some of them peer-reviewed, such as Naturwissenschaften -- were being accepted into the article. That's what Hipocrite edit warred against and that's what WMC removed with his revert to the May 14 version. From our present article, you would not know that these theories exist. That's the "quiet" that is so pleasing to some. Enric has raised many old issues, such as statements by a few editors at RFA/Abd 2, solicited by Yellowbeard, blocked for canvassing and now indef blocked, who sought out prior disputants and invited them to comment. Enric previously promised, if the case was rejected, to immediately take the matter to AN to push for a continued ban, even without any edits justifying that. For him, this dispute has become highly personal. Without his prior move to AN/I over the ban, it's entirely possible that this entire flap would have been quieted. If we assume that I'd edited the Talk page -- I had no intention at all of editing the article -- WMC would have blocked me, I'd have submitted an unblock template, and we'd have had a decision by an uninvolved admin, and that might have been that. Instead, we have this mess. It's not only WMC's stubbornness (and/or mine), it's Enric's passion for banning me, yet he never followed dispute resolution for any of it, beyond warning me, his version of DR; likewise he does not understand that the noticeboards are not part of DR, either. He should be reminded. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I think this would be a little impracticable. However, while Abd continues in his evidence to assert there are those out to get him or that there is a cabal, his longer term interactions with the users that he claims are in dispute with him should be taken into account. As Brecht wrote: Denn wie man sich bettet, so liegt man. Mathsci (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to oppose this: if the scope is widened in regard to all of Abd's actions, then I'm concerned that it is also reasonable to ask that the scope should be widened to cover all of WMC's actions. And even if it was not expanded to include WMC, I'm in agreement with Mathsci that increasing the scope would make the discussion impractical. That said, I would assume that Abd's editing practices in regard to Cold fusion are within scope (in so far as they show cause for an article ban), as are those interactions mentioned by Mathsci, and that any findings in regard to these topics could serve in a potential future RFC/U or community ban discussion. - Bilby (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Expanding the scope to cover the editing and behavior of just one of the named parties would be grossly unfair. If the scope is to be expanded to cover a multi-year span of behavior let it be for all the named parties, including Enric. Enric has been on a crusade against Abd and trying to get him banned for quite some time (diffs to be provided upon request) and this motion is simply one more example of that behavior.
Enric fails to WP:AGF on a regular basis, and not simply against Abd. Recently Enric also tried to make a case for having me banned by falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet. Enric has also rabidly vehemently pursued a ban on Jed Rothwell despite that fact that he is currently indefinitely blocked and unable to (legitimately) edit anywhere on the project. His constant droning on about these bannings is disruptive here, on the administrative notice boards, and basically anywhere he edits. I believe that the extent of this WP:HARASSment and the WP:ABF evidence behind it would be an appropriate topic for ArbCom to review. I would issue a motion to this effect, but unlike Enric I am not looking to have those with whom I disagree banned or barred from participating on the project.
Another prime example is the ANI thread that is being discussed here as part of WMC's ban where it purportedly WP:SNOWed against Abd. The only trouble was that the snow was yellow and it was coming from editors like Enric who initiated that discussion despite the fact that at the time Abd had not violated the ban WMC imposed. There was, in essence, nothing to actually talk about in terms of substance or policy violations, it was all drama and it was all started by Enric. And it was all bolstered by involved editors. Such activities are clearly disruptive and waste valuable editor time.
Abd had asked that the ANI thread in question be closed to AVOID disruption. Enric created it. I also suspect that the WP:SNOW seen there was more a function of the ban in question being a strictly limited one of one month and on a specific page. A full community ban would be quite different, I suspect, despite Enric's fantasies to the contrary. --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please refactor the word "rabidly": remember WP:NPA. Enric Naval has patiently engaged in discussion with Abd longer than most users. He does not show signs of "acute pain, violent movements, uncontrolled excitement, depression and inability to swallow water". Nor does he appear to be experiencing "periods of mania and lethargy, followed by coma". Please try to avoid using this kind of inflammatory rhetoric. Mathsci (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I chose my words carefully. See rabidly, specifically definition 1b which was the meaning I had intended. That definition is not inflammatory, it is an accurate description of his behavior. One need look no further than this RFAR to see that. Never the less, per your request I have refactored the word accordingly.
"... rather than contribute to the mediation process ..." - You appear to be, let's say, factually challenged. Abd has embraced the Cold Fusion mediation since it first began. Just go look at the discussion there. --GoRight (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure this kind of motion is needed or necessary. Past actions can be used to illustrate/clarify current ongoing problems. Previous postings can also be used to indicate current patterns of behavior (e.g. offers of meatpuppetry -deleted by Black Kite in '08) which are undesirable and against policies. R. Baley (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
R. Baley, if that link refers to something I wrote, which it appears to, I'd appreciate a copy, if the file wasn't offensive or a policy violation, or how about undeleting it so that anyone can read it? I have nothing to hide. (And if I do, I'd want to know!) --Abd (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I decline. Request forwarded (diff) to the deleting administrator, Black Kite (section link). R. Baley (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also decline to undelete it, but if I quote the opening section of it - "This is a page for users to leave articles, essay suggestions, or comments for my review. This may be used, as an example, by users on article or civility parole ... Leaving material here gives me permission to use the material elsewhere on Wikipedia, with me taking responsibility for it as my own edit..." the reason for it being deleted is probably fairly clear. Black Kite 08:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm.... as far as I can see, that is not a violation of any kind, and that Black Kite thinks it is may suggest that ArbComm address this issue of "proxying." It was just a more specified location for that kind of suggestion, and more public than email or my page User talk:Abd/IP, which is important when my Talk page is semiprotected. It's my view that we should always keep lines of communication open with banned users; when we don't, we get Scibaby et al. That communication should only be with consenting editors, so the "exhausted patience of the community" does not apply. We recently had many editors cooperating with ScienceApologist in working on an article, while not only banned but blocked, and I supported that. Why not extend that possibility of cooperation to all banned editors? I request, then, undeletion of that page to my user space, so that I may review the history as well. In order to avoid unnecessary disruption, I will CSD tag it for deletion after I review it, unless others request it remain. --Abd (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the whole "taking responsibility for it as my own edit" thing seems to directly contradict the GFDL, which requires that all edits be attributed to their creator. Copying content from one page to another requires that you provide a list of contributors or otherwise provide a reference to the text's history. As such, that page is improperly licensed and should not be restored. I note that I'm now the third admin to decline this. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the new CC-BY-SA license requires this too, not that it was applied to text contributions at that time. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more weeks to gather evidence

[edit]

3) I ask arbs to give me and Abd two more weeks to gather evidence before they start making proposals in the workshop (until Monday 3rd August). There are megabytes of conversation related to this case, just reading it takes me a lot of time, and I have only gone throught a fraction of it. I have problems backing up my statements in the workshop because there are so many problems that I haven't sorted through yet. Also, I want to address in my evidence whether WMC's prior blocks have been found problematic by the community, and I want to make clearer wich evidence covers the time frame of the ban, and which evidence is about the current problems with the current ban being just a continuation and/or a logical consequence of long-term problems that remained unacknowledged by Abd over a long time. Arbs will also be able to see better if the evidence supports or not a expansion of the scope.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Diminishing returns for these sorts of cases. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing value in this; the scope is well circumscribed, and it should not take more than the standard one week to present evidence here. In fact, if it is taking more than a week, that begs the question of whether (a) the evidence is relevant to the scope or (b) there was a reason to take the case in the first place. Risker (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want everyone to have a full and fair opportunity to locate evidence and present it cogently to us ... but I would prefer to move to a proposed decision in much less than two more weeks. Ultimately, though, it's really up to the drafting arbitrator, who to an extent dictates the pace of the case from the committee's point of view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposed. Notice that, for example, today I'll be busy so I won't be able to gather evidence (and, indeed, I shouldn't be editing wikipedia right now!). --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I could use the time as well, in fact, I'm a bit worried about even a week more, it might not be enough. I do have kids, a business to run, and a Meetup in New York this weekend that I've promised to join. Note that this support is not support of expansion of the scope of the case. I'm aware, at the present, that my evidence may look like I'm expanding the scope, but I'm not. The situations mentioned there will be placed in context and the many editors mentioned are not targets, specific wrong-doing is not being alleged. (If it were, I would have notified them, and some of those names were only mentioned at this point so that I could make blanket statements of completeness, i.e., this list of editors was all editors who qualified as stated.) If there are behavior problems with the "cabal," they would be raised as enforcement requests for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, not here. The most that is being shown is a kind of broad involvement that should be a matter of concern, but not necessarily of sanction, except where that prior involvement led these editors to become specifically involved in this much narrower case, as can be seen in those showing behavioral problems in this very request, with warning after warning being issued by clerks. --Abd (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to two weeks, since I was also wary that one week would not be enough and I would have to ask for another adjourning. I also changed "me" to "me and Abd". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks okay by me. There are some wedge issues here, and taking the time to do it right could be quite useful. Besides, I've got some actual article work to do that I should get done before I'm site-banned, as some have been predicting. I suppose I could email some of my meat puppets cooperating editors should I not get it done in time. It's just finishing stuff that I began, stuff that was controversial for a short time, but then consensus was found. Some here -- except for Enric once in a while -- aren't likely to mention that. Maybe I'll ask Enric to "proxy" for me. Hey, Enric, if I email you some good edits that you could easily verify, not controversial, would you make them for me? Or would you think that a violation of WP:MEAT? --Abd (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't much care. I've said everything I need to for the moment. The train-wreck remains entertaining; but drawn out for another two weeks it will probably become dull. Abd is busy shooting himself in the foot; given more time he may manage to do so slightly less messily, which would be good. The downside is that I'll probably be tempted into more self-defeating sarcasm, but its a fine balance William M. Connolley (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Enough junk; Stephan is correct William M. Connolley (talk) 22:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly (errm, that was irony, in case you thought I was being serious), arbcomm dilatoriness has now effectively granted this motion. Shall we ask for another two weeks, on the off chance that they wouldn't give it to us? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I personally would like to see what Enric gathers to get a feel of it all. So far I have found the evidence and the difs very enlightening and would find that the more difs should be an advantage to everyone prior to deciding anything here. The idea of this case is to stop the disruptions so lets give anyone a chance to show what they feel a need to show. If it goes off target it can always be reverted and the situation can be stopped by an arbitrator. Thoughts of others? --CrohnieGalTalk 11:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me get this straight. A party proposes this. An adverse party supports it. And the third party accepts it. Consensus of the parties! And Stephan is opposed? May I suggest that he do something useful with the time? Evidence and proposals can be refactored, so, in fact, 24 weeks would be better than 24 hours, this is, after all, a wiki. There are issues, even issues raised here, where a 24 week page, continually refined until settled, would be quite appropriate. What if, for example, the factions involved got together and persuaded "members" to withdraw distracting and redundant comments, leaving only the best and most cogent, or combined and signed proposals? However, there is a point of maximum return for effort, and it's probably quite a bit short of 24 weeks! It's longer than 24 hours, editors have outside responsibilities, etc. --Abd (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abd, please move this remark to the section "comment by parties". Mathsci (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tradition seems to be that parties may respond in the "others" section. Parties get privileged position, that's all. Mathsci, you could have had this privilege too, you could still have it. I'm sure that if you requested to be added as a party, it would be done. A clerk may move the comment if the clerk decides it's better that way. --Abd (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur 100% with Stephan. Raul654 (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But of course as a member in good standing of the "Raul/WMC/SS/KDP/... Majority POV Pushing Society" this would have been understood by all coming in. Your comment here is actually a tad redundant in that respect. (Comment made for illustration purposes only.) --GoRight (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference here is that, unlike you, I'm not making transparently false claims. Stephan's point -- that giving Abd an extra two weeks would only result in an extraordinarily low signal-to-noise ratio on all pages he touches -- is well taken. Raul654 (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if I add piles of irrelevant and "false claims," this will simplify ArbComm's job; no arbitrator is actually obligated to read all the "twaddle." If I cover up the "signal" with dreck, effectively mooning the jury, surely that would be a great reason to site-ban me or perhaps demand that I find a mentor or some other remedy. What I see on the evidence page, though, is a bit of the reverse. Again, anyone gets to make false claims here, but making false claims can be grounds for being sanctioned, for they are disruptive. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Raul - Am I mistaken here? I thought that this was actually Enric's motion? --GoRight (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is Enric's motion. What is your point? I oppose it all the same. I don't want Abd filling up these pages with his content-void walls of text, and Enric's motion is bound to encourage exactly that. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned privately to the arbitrators via clerks-l, I feel that extending this case opens up severe risk of further disruption, and I believe the attacks and name-calling in this very section are evidence of that. In any event, there are already several statements that are close to or over the defined evidence limit, Enric's included (although I will grant it has been shortened). Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to freeze the Workshop page pending completion of evidence

[edit]

4) For two weeks, while the parties and others prepare and condense evidence for completeness and clarity, the Workshop page should be protected and work on findings and proposals suspended.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Well, since I don't think that anyone needs two weeks to present evidence here (remember, we want evidence specific to this issue, not philosophical treatises), then there is no particular reason to extend the evidence phase. Risker (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Beyond that, I don't see the desirability of "freezing" the workshop, though I do think that everyone should present only proposals that they believe should be seriously considered for adoption as part of the decision, and not mere debating points. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by parties:
Proposals are being made based on charges that have not been supported with evidence. There is reasonable fear that if more time elapses, the comments will multiply. It would seem to make sense that the community have before it clear and complete evidence before making proposals. Without the evidence being complete, I see a clerk having difficulty identifying what is relevant and what is not, and some editors are supporting or opposing proposed findings based on prior opinions and impressions, and quite possibly factional affiliation, rather than specific evidence. We have the advisory jury of the community debating the verdict before the trial. --Abd (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Risker: Evidence text is relatively brief, once evidence has been compiled. Compiling relevant evidence and sorting through it for what is relevant, and presenting it cogently could be impossible for some, difficult for others, and time-consuming for anyone. Having precompiled much of the evidence, it still took me a full day, maybe 12 hours, to write the RfAr, and that was very narrowly focused. From what other editors have brought up, it became necessary to expand what's covered, though I'm still keeping it focused on the needs of the Abd-WMC dispute (though it might look otherwise at the moment, because the existing evidence hasn't been boiled down yet, I've laid part of the foundation, but have built none of the house.) --Abd (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad: I would propose *in general* not opening workshops until the evidence phase has been completed to the satisfaction of the editors presenting evidence (within reason). Debate on the Evidence page should be highly discouraged. Alternatively, the workshop could be open for proposals, but without any debate other than preliminary endorsements, with no opposing comments, as in an RfC. (That way, parties would know better what evidence might need to be presented.) I have made only one proposal on this page, other than motions. It didn't require evidence, because it's general. However a series of proposed findings and remedies have been created here, without supporting evidence on the evidence page, as far as I've seen. That's a waste of time and dangerous, and has encouraged much premature debate. I don't need this page frozen, but the complaint about allowing additional time for evidence -- you won't know if it was necessary until you've seen it! -- was that it would encourage more waste of time here. The claim that these motions are dilatory should be considered in the light of who is harmed by delay. As far as I can see, only me. Is there some ongoing disruption that would make a fast decision necessary? If so, the behavior should be enjoined, quickly and without prejudice. --Abd (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I asked the arbs not to make proposals while evidence was still being compiled, but the editors that have been directly involved in the matter are already familiar with the events. They have already finished their evidence, and myself I made a couple of proposals below when I finished that part of my evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Oppose, Abd started with proposals before adding any evidence whatsoever so its hipocritical of them to now demand the workshop be frozen because others are making proposals. There is so such data now that its unfair on others to make them stop for Abd's benefit. Spartaz Humbug! 05:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a demand, Spartaz. It's a proposed motion. If ArbComm wants this page to continue to grow ad interim, I have no personal problem with it, though it wastes time for me and others to create proposals and respond to comments that would not necessarily be made if the evidence were all in. I trust that ArbComm will decide based on what it considers best. --Abd (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you just concentrated on completing your evidence if this is such an important point for you rather then wasting your time on frivolous motions like this. Spartaz Humbug! 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per comments to proposal of prolongation of period of preparation of evidence, per clerk's comments and per projected date of completion in mid-August. As the initiator of the case, Abd should have prepared the bulk of his evidence before it started. Mathsci (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC) It's 1000 words, not War and Peace — Abd's writing skills are needed on the evidence page not on Wikipedia Review. Chop-Chop. [reply]
I had evidence prepared, and it was filed with the case. However, attempts have been made to expand the scope, and, when this case was open and evidence and proposals started coming in, I realized that the issue of the cabal, which I'd hoped to avoid, was becoming highly relevant. The level of disruption in these pages has diverted me from that task, plus I have RL responsibilities that I cannot continue to neglect. --Abd (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've spent more time arguing this case off-site than you have presenting evidence over the past few days, so the limited-time argument seems somewhat unconvincing. If you want to refocus on developing evidence, you don't need an ArbCom motion. Just lead the way. MastCell Talk 16:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of editors have commented on this, assuming that the length of a post correlates well with how much time it took. Actually, posts on WR are fast and easy to write, because, there, I truly DGAF. Further, what many editors have missed is that raw discussion like what happens there can help me to develop a sense of what may resonate and what may not. I use Talk discussion the same way here, to test the water, but I'm much more cautious. I can tell what's likely to find consensus by the response (or non-response) on a Talk page. WR is like an eXtreme Talk page. It's an efficient use of my time, in fact, it takes little time and I gain relatively much information. An ordinary Talk post, standard Wall-o-Text (TM) takes me easily twice as long, sometimes ten or twenty times as long, as a post of equivalent length on WR. Putting together RfAr evidence text? Triple that or more. I'd much prefer having been able to put this time to work converting reliable sources to article text. During the month before I was banned, that's what I'd started to do. --Abd (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Actually I think I might have been accused in around and about way of coming to decisions prior to this case without doing my homework here. I have to admit some of the accusations and comments made to me have colored my opinions, a lot, sorry. This seems like a way to slow things down when maybe they aren't going as planned, just a thought. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - dilatory. Raul654 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Abd's reply to NYB: Need I remind you that we've had two instances of edit warring in this case, once before and once after it was accepted? While it has been made clear further disruption won't be tolerated, and things have been moderately quiet for the last 36 hours, I would be a fool to think we've seen the end of it in this case. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 18:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold_fusion_2/Workshop/Motions&oldid=1079519325"