Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:00, 8 August 2009

Sorry for harsh remarks

I'm sorry that I wrote snide remarks and uncivil words. I'm afraid that the helpful comments were written long ago and I felt that they went ignored (this will be evident when I submit my evidence this weekend), and now my frustration with Abd is making me write very harsh messages. Unfortunately, arbs don't know the context and they won't understand what I am talking about, so I'll make a serious effort to be way more neutral and clear, and not use any sarcasm. I will be grateful that people leaves a note on my talk page when they see that I am making unhelpful comments. I won't comment more until I finish the evidence, so I can support my statements properly. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding and efforts, Enric. This is undoubtedly going to be a very heated case in any event, and the arbitrators and myself as case clerk would all very much appreciate everyone's commitment to keep careful watch on themselves and their comments. Should anyone notice that a comment has been made which does cross the line, please feel free to email me - I'm not as active during the week as I'd like due to work, but I will be sure to take a look and handle things as necessary as soon as I can. My talk page is similarly open, but if you feel you're being attacked, email may be a better option to reduce drama levels. Thanks again. Hersfold 21:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Recently arrived user

• Arkady Renkov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

With only 70 edits to his name before today and no apparent experience with noticeboards/ArbCom, this recently arrived user shows complete familiarity with[REDACTED] jargon and processes. WP:DUCK suggests that this might be a sockpuppet account. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Or possibly a user who had previously used another name (*), or a user who mainly doesn't bother to log in or a user who lurks a lot or ... Just a reminder that sockpuppet is defined as "an alternative account used for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Misplaced Pages policies". Would you like to say which of those you are accusing me of, or would you like to take your accusation to WP:SPI and back it up with evidence, or would you like to withdraw now before ArbComm sanctions you for trying to intimidate other participants in this case? Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(*)The correct answer BTW Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not permitted to edit policy pages with alternative accounts. Spartaz 11:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Arkady is obviously a matured sock of some kind. Spartaz 11:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilby has independently suggested A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on my talk page. It's hard to say. I previously contacted MastCell about this, because a similar thing happened during the Fringe Science Cold Fusion ArbCom case. Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's hard to say then don't say it. I note that it is permitted to leave off one account name and take up another. I note neither of you make these accusations in the proper place. I also note that you have strong positions in this case and hence are highly motivated to discredit and discourage anyone who expresses a contrary view. This is not proper behaviour in an arbitration case. Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in ArbCom cases as Spartaz has just written. Please disclose your alternative WP account(s). Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I havent blocked you already but why don't you say what your previous account was so we can see whether your contribution is permitted? Quack Quack! Spartaz 11:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because this isn't WP:SPI. I'll let Arbcomm look after the intimidation. Arkady Renkov (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Boris asked me to look into this. I ran checkuser on Arkady and turned up several other possible sockpuppets, although insofar as I can tell none of them has been used to violate policy other than the Arkady account's edits to the arbcom pages. I've started a discussion on the checkuser mailing list. Raul654 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I suppose the real question – aside from the plain 'who was this guy before he changed account names' – is what previous interaction has he had with the parties to this Arbitration. It rather strains the limits of my ability to assume good faith when a 'new' account shows up after fifty edits and three-month vacation to immediately dive into an Arbitration with a full set of draft remedies (including a desysopping). The ArbCom has in the past made quite clear that it won't (and shouldn't) tolerate sniping from anonymous shadows. Absent clear, convincing identification of Arkady's previous account(s), he should be barred from this process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Clerk note: I've talked with some checkusers and arbitrators and can confirm that Arkady Renkov is abusively using sockpuppets to comment on this case. I have blocked that account, and assume the CU's will be taking similar action elsewhere. I will also be removing Arkady's evidence from the evidence page, and any remaining comments on the Workshop page. I'll be removing Enric's analysis section as well simply to keep things tidy; there's no reason to analyze evidence that has been dismissed.

For future reference, should you feel a post should be removed from the case pages for any reason, please let a clerk know and do not complete the removal yourself. We are here for a reason, and by allowing the clerks to take care of matters like this, we reduce confusion about whether removals are legitimate. Additionally, we may have additional instructions from ArbCom to handle certain matters in certain ways. Thank you for your understanding. Hersfold 19:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the surest ways to create disruption in this community is to block an editor based on secret evidence. And that's what just happened. We have a claim that Arkady Renkov is a sockpuppet, but no identification of the puppet master, nor any clear confirmation of policy violation, just an ArbComm procedural violation, in a case where those are rampant. The editor did not, as others have done here without any consequence except more warnings, ignore warnings. For a clerk to remove inappropriate content is one thing, but to block an editor for posting evidence to ArbComm, and for all this sock puppet attention to be focused, so rapidly, makes me quite worried. Here is what puzzles me: Hersfold writes, "Arkady Renkov is abusively using sockpuppets to comment on this case." Okay, who are they? Or does Hersfold mean that someone else is using a sockpuppet to comment?

I'm not questioning the exclusion of the evidence and the proposals. It's my view that we should be responsible for what we present and propose; hence, if anyone has evidence or proposals to present, I'd be happy to receive it by email, and, if I'm willing to take full responsibility for it, I could put it up, and I'm sure there are other editors willing to do similarly. The key is that someone is willing to take responsibility, to stand up and be counted. Yes, if we are going to remove the cloud of suspicion over factionalism at Misplaced Pages, we are going to have to take the risk that, yes, there is not only a cabal, but it is powerful. My continued participation here, given what I know about the cabal that does exist (which is probably not a conspiracy, though it might appear so), is based on my understanding that whatever power is improperly exercised by the cabal is not supported at the highest levels, nor is it supported by the consensus of the community. If I'm wrong about that, you wouldn't have to ban me, I'd be history as soon as this was clear.

I'd appreciate some assurances from arbitrators about block of Arkady Renkov. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Could Abd please refactor this post? It is inappropriately long and shows a lack of good faith in the clerk, who is in contact with ArbCom. Nobody has accepted Abd's conspiracy theories about a cabal, so could he please stop using this unhelpful crackpot phrase? Mathsci (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci added some garbled text about cabal to my edit, above, he should, perhaps, be more careful. I use the term "cabal" with a meaning that I defined in my Evidence. The term "cabal," as I recall, has been used in media source with reference to Misplaced Pages, perhaps it's time we faced it, and tried to understand why. I am not proposing a "conspiracy," but rather the effect of a cabal that can exist without such conspiratorial coordination. --Abd (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This was mouse noise. Sorry. As for crackpot conspiracy theories, Abd should stop wasting users' and arbitrators' time. Mathsci (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd's above comments are as accurate and reflective of Misplaced Pages policy as we have come to expect from his postings. To wit:

One of the surest ways to create disruption in this community is to block an editor based on secret evidence. And that's what just happened. - this is where Abd shines. Sure, other users might apply reading comprehension skills to what has already been written on this page, so they can learn for themselves why Arkady was banned. But why do that, when you can just make it up as you go along?

We have a claim that Arkady Renkov is a sockpuppet, - no, we have an admission from Arkady him/herself that he/she is a sockpuppet.

nor any clear confirmation of policy violation - swing and a miss. "sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates or Arbitration Committee proceedings." --Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry

if anyone has evidence or proposals to present, I'd be happy to receive it by email, and, if I'm willing to take full responsibility for it, - I hope the arbitrators note that this is *exactly* the same treatment that you gave to banned users Jed Rothwell and Scibaby. That you continue to make the same offer during an arbcom case relating to these activities speaks volumes about your ability for self assessment.

I hope this has been enlightening for the arbitrators, because the above thread is actually quite representative of Abd's overall usefulness to this project. Raul654 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Raul. I certainly hope so. Otherwise, who else will deal with your persistent bullying? You created the Scibaby problem, which is causing ongoing damage, and then you are considered indispensable because you are the only one who can manage this really difficult problem. --Abd (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"I hope the arbitrators note that this is *exactly* the same treatment that you gave to banned users Jed Rothwell and Scibaby." - I would ask that Raul be requested to provide evidence in support of his claim that Abd was in contact on or off wiki with Rothwell and Scibaby regarding his edits or that he strike that comment as being false and inappropriate.

This is standard operating procedure for Raul, he just makes stuff up and throws it at people. He blatantly lies and misrepresents things in his efforts to ban those with whom he disagrees (see the discussion at for details and on his WP:ATTACK WP:ATTACKPAGE page (a policy violation) that he keeps on me at and which he has indefinitely protected to prevent me from offering my side of the story there (a use of administrative tools while in a dispute, unless I am mistaken) like he WP:OWNs the page.

For those who think I am being overly dramatic in my concern about Raul's meat puppetry proposals, note that Enric is not the only one engaging in the making of false and misleading accusations of sock puppetry. On the above mentioned WP:ATTACK WP:ATTACKPAGE page Raul basically asserts, or more accurately tries to strongly imply, that I am a puppet master. Of course he is forced to admit that he has not evidence whatsoever to link me to that sock, but that doesn't stop him from making the accusation none the less. Thanks to Enric I have now been check usered by someone independent of Raul and it turned up nothing. Nothing. I encourage people to read through some of the descriptions he catalogs there and then follow the links to read my edits in full context. Decide for yourself about how honest Raul actually is in these situations. --GoRight (talk) 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would like to say that no personal attacks needs to be followed before this gets out of control. I would also suggest to User:GoRight to read the above comments made and consider a bit of refractoring per policies. Again as has been stated before about WP:Meat this is not acceptable either, "I'm not questioning the exclusion of the evidence and the proposals. It's my view that we should be responsible for what we present and propose; hence, if anyone has evidence or proposals to present, I'd be happy to receive it by email, and, if I'm willing to take full responsibility for it, I could put it up, and I'm sure there are other editors willing to do similarly. The key is that someone is willing to take responsibility, to stand up and be counted." Abd, this is considered against policy and you really should not be offering to take information from a sockpuppet to use as evidence. The sock admitted and was confirmed, the information was redacted by a clerk and thus it does not belong here or anywhere to be honest. I think you know this but you still insist it should be shown just like you have said about using info from banned users like Jed Rothwell. I'm sorry but this kind of behavior mixed with your claims of a cabal is really startling and seriously a breach of policies and guidelines. This of course is my opinion, --CrohnieGal 14:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Statements of clear fact are not personal attacks. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Clark Action required concerning Proposals from Arkady Renkov

Can a clerk please remove them as they have clearly been added by an established user in violation of the policy that alternate accounts are not to be used to edit policy pages to hide the identity of the main account. . Thank you. Spartaz 16:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, as stated above. Hersfold 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Uninvolved TotientDragooned (talk)

As a disclaimer, I have never had any involvement with Cold Fusion, Abd, WMC, or most of the other parties to the case, so take this comment with however much salt is appropriate --- but from reading over this page I'm embarrassed by a lot of the behavior here. Namely

• Dogpiling on Abd about the length of his posts: I've never had dealings with Abd, and it is possible that his conduct on Cold Fusion and elsewhere has greatly infuriated some editors. However, reading over the case pages in isolation, I don't think Abd has been particularly long-winded, and personal attacks about the lengths of his posts or demands to refactor are not adding any light to the discussion.
• Rampant bad faith about Arkady: Although the above behavior is somewhat vindicated now that he is (allegedly) confirmed as a sockpuppet, I am nevertheless appalled by the lack of good faith shown by Mathsci, Spartaz, and others.
• Raul running checkuser on Arkady: From the workshop page, it is clear that Raul takes a very dim view of Abd, his supporters, and their evidence. I am disappointed that, given this involvement, he ran a checkuser on Arkady himself instead of asking a neutral third party.
• Secret trial of Arkady: There are certainly good reasons for not making public the evidence of sockpuppetry, but I would have expected at the very least a short note from a clerk or arbitrary explaining those reasons. TotientDragooned (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh look another sleeper sock in this RFAR. Check out the first edit . Pleasé can a Clerk do whatever is necessary. Spartaz 06:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahem, a clerk asked checkusers about Arkady Renkov, found he was a sockpuppet, made a statement above and then removed his evidence, with a polite reminder for Raul654. Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I didn't realize he had done it at the request of a clerk. I retract my comment, with apologies to Raul. TotientDragooned (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
        • See, this sockpuppet is much nicer then the last one. Spartaz 08:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Note this edit to Talk:Butcher group. Remind you of anything? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Good job I removed Butcher group from my watchlist some while back :) Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the identity of this alternate account, I'd suggest, at the very least, removing the word "uninvolved" from the section heading. MastCell  18:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any alternate accounts. (I do have an abandoned account, which I understand is entirely within policy; my old username contained private information about me so I discontinued using it. I've never logged in to the old account after registering TotientDragooned. I'm happy to email arbcom the old name upon request, though it should be obvious from a checkuser.) I don't begrudge you thinking me a sockpuppet, if you have good-faith reasons to come to that conclusion, but I do think it's only reasonable that you either formally file an SPI, or cease hounding me here. TotientDragooned (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Hounding" you? You came here claiming to be an "uninvolved" user "appalled" by the lack of good faith on the part of some participants. Given your (unacknowledged) history with those participants, your self-presentation appears dishonest and renders your demand for good faith somewhat ironic. There is actually hounding taking place here, but it consists of you abusing your right to vanish and using your new account to pursue old grudges, while pretending to be "uninvolved". MastCell  18:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

sigh. I can reiterate that I have never had any dealings with you, nor any of the parties here, under either the current or my old account, and I certainly don't bear them any grudges. If you refuse to believe me there is nothing further I can do to defend myself, other than to point out that I haven't been blocked by those with the ability to verify the preceding claims. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to email arbcom the old name upon request, - please mail the clerk, Hersfold, and let us know when you have done so William M. Connolley (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done so. Cheers TotientDragooned (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have received the email and forwarded it to ArbCom for review and advice. In the meantime, Totient/Arkady, please make no further edits to the case pages until you are otherwise notified. Other users, please leave Totient/Arkady's posts alone, and focus on the rest of the case for the time being. I'll post a notification here once we figure out what's going on. Hersfold 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

comment on Arkady situation

1. The editors who nosed out Arkady's socking showed experienced judgement as was borne out by the investigation results. AGF doesn't mean "ignore evidence".
2. In this particular situation there was improper socking that was handled the right way; in normal circumstances, though, as far as I know, commenting on arb cases is open to everyone. I've commented on a few of them in the past under other IP addresses, and nobody complained. It's true that the main arb request page has been semi-protected for a while, but IIRC that happened because someone was spamming it a while back.
3. TotientDragooned does appear to be an alias of another disruptive editor who is easily recognizable. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree in that we shouldn't ignore evidence just because it has been presented by a sock. I'm not going to restore it, but I will look at it and salvage what the parts that are actually good, and get my comment in the workshop (wich was also removed since the evidence they refered to was gone) and convert it into evidence.

You see, Abd, the other party in the case, raises in his evidence allegations that WMC is part of a cabal of editors, to which JzG is also claimed to belong. I notice that Abd is claiming in a single message that JzG scapped desysosping by a short margin in the last case, that JzG was put "on a short leash" due to the case, and that WMC could be at risk of losing his admin bit due to the possibility of being a net negative to the project (ante-last paragraph), and that just yesterday Abd was stating that he hasn't asked for the desysoping of WMC "at least not yet, but I suspect that others will." and that Abd has made many more veiled or indirect references towards the possible and even probable desysoping of WMC if he didn't leave his ban, or if the dispute was ever brought to Arbcom. I think that this really needs to be addressed, and that Arbcom needs to make a finding of fact about WMC, in order to prevent this case from casting an unwarranted bad light on him. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, the sockmaster can restore the evidence using their main account. And then everyone can parse the evidence in the context of their actual relationship with WMC. I like the new sock though, he seems much nicer. Spartaz 08:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You can be sure that I will present the evidence using my own interpretations, and not the interpretations that the sock made. The main account can present his own evidence alongside mine, since he is most surely going to reach very different conclusions from the same evidence. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

By "AGF doesn't mean ignore evidence", I only meant if there is information (including experienced judgement) to suggest that someone is socking (or has a COI or whatever), then it is ok to weigh what they say in that light, and to investigate further if appropriate. AGF simply means to begin the evaluation with a positive predisposition towards the person's intentions in the absence of other information, not that the other information (if present) should be ignored if it suggests something else is going on.

I actually hadn't noticed that Arkady had posted to the evidence section. I only saw his rather weak workshop post. I do see the activity of a cabal in this case, but it's not a WMC cabal, it's more of a cabal consisting of Arkady's buddies, who I hope all get banned pretty soon, since they are predominantly useless pains in the neck through the whole encyclopedia and not just here. I agree with the principle that it's ok for Arkady to re-post his evidence under his main account, but it's not obvious to me that he has a main account rather than just a bunch of other socks. On the other hand I try not to pay close attention to this stuff. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic comments on expertise

Abd seems to have gone off-topic in his remarks on the project page and misquotes me. His remarks about WP:COI seem completely batty and show a complete misunderstanding of[REDACTED] policy. The article Differential geometry of surfaces explicitly states that it is intended to be at an undergraduate level, that is why it has so many pictures, some (not very well) drawn using xfig by me. I made over 600 edits to this article. It has a graduate-level sequel Riemannian connection on a surface: the teaching of connections is generally considered tough. However, sometimes it's unavoidable, e.g. in the course Atiyah-Singer index theorem that will be lectured in Cambridge next year. I would recommend Chateau of Vauvenargues and Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes if Abd liked the Nicolas Poussin article. Handel organ concertos Op.4 is still in preparation - although not signed up, it could be considered part of WP:DRAMAOUT.although to say that drama has been avoided on this set of pages might be stretching the imagination a little :-) Abd might also be interested to know that I am gradually working my way through both the Bach and the Handel on a newly acquired Heyligers organ (I'm working on BWV 659 at the moment, Nun komm der heiden Heiland.) He might also like Hadamard's method of descent, a stub which led to my rewriting of most of the weird bio of Jacques Hadamard. One day Abd should try creating a proper encyclopedia article himself from scratch (not a stub), The Plancherel theorem for spherical functions on the work of Harish-Chandra is clearly at a graduate level: if that means it is above Abd's head, he should not comment; it is a prototype of one of the most celebrated results in group representation theory (Harish-Chandra's Plancherel theorem for semisimple Lie groups) but is much, much easier. All these topics appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica and are deeply related to theoretical physics, for reasons spelt out in the WP article on Harish-Chandra.Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What Abd has completely failed to understand is that I was explaining to him how to edit uncontroversial mainstream articles. He chose to ignore this and misrepresent me as trying to give my own credentials. His remarks about mathematics are uniformed and show that he has had very little university-level training in mathematics. For those that have read what Abd writes on WP, this is fairly typical of his reponses: ignore what is being is discussed, pretend to have expertise in an area beyond his competence and then make an unjustified snide personal attack in the response. I repeat my question in the evidence: will it ever be possible for Abd to reverse his regression to single purpose fringe POV-pusher and start editing uncontroversial mainstream namespace articles? Mathsci (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

General notice and warning to all users involved with this case

All users read in full. This applies to all users involved in this case.

The clerks and arbs have noticed that the behavior of the parties thus far in the case has been unacceptable. Several policies have been violated and the conduct occurring so far will not be permitted to continue. All parties are instructed to not edit anything other than their own comments. All parties are reminded of WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:EDITWAR. Any party that edit wars, edits another user's section in any manner, or is incivil to any degree, will be blocked without further warning for a minimum period of 24 hours. The block will be placed by a clerk or an arb and can be appealed in the normal manner. If you feel there is a problem with a statement made somewhere, or a situation in some other way needs to be handled, please do not attempt to deal with it yourself, but contact myself via email or talk page, or the clerks in general at WP:AC/CN. Thank you. Hersfold 23:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

<Applause>. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - Abd has decided to take his personal attacks off wiki: Hipocrite is hiding. Mathsi is an arrogant asshole. Raul654 is an arrogant highly privileged asshole. Abd is verbose and believes he understands stuff. Enric Naval can't stand opposition. WMC gives no shit about consensus, just enforces NPOV. His NPOV, not yours.

According to the timestamp, that comment was made today at 12:57 PM, well after he was notified of the above. Raul654 (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as it's off wiki, I can't do anything about it here. However, Abd, it is quite shameful that you would be in such support of this warning only to go ignoring it the moment it doesn't apply. That goes for anyone on WR; I don't read the site, so Abd's posts are the only ones I'm aware of. Not that I want to be informed of any more. Hersfold 00:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In order to understand those posts, you'd need to know what preceded it. The meanings of words are not absolute, they vary with the context. The word "asshole" would be highly inappropriate on Misplaced Pages. I could restate that quoted comment in a Misplaced Pages context, and, indeed, that's exactly what I'll be doing with the evidence. I don't recommend reading WR if you want to remain neutral; however, Hersfold, you've made a series of comments that raise issues about your neutrality. Raul654's comment should have been removed if it wasn't "actionable." I've stated that I understand you are in a difficult situation, but ... you have also made comments in the Workshop page showing agreement with one party or position or another, utterly inappropriate for a clerk. I've seen you harshly criticize minor incivility on one side, while routinely allowing much worse on the other. A clerk should not criticize at all. Act or don't. Request or enjoin but do not blame. I respectfully request that you recuse.

Meanwhile, I'll repeat. The above comment -- and this response -- should be removed, even though it gives me some pleasure to imagine the cheers. Take a look at User:Mathsci, his "topical picture." Who is led to the guillotine, and who preceded him, and why are the people dancing? --Abd (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on now. Did you see the timestamp on that diff? July 14th. Bastille Day. Hence, a "topical picture". MastCell  05:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The topical picture was put there on the 14th of July, Bastille day here in France. The subtitle on the thumbnail gives the answer to the question: Robespierre amd Saint-Just, the people are French. Abd would be well advised to remember the words he added to Jehochman's essay WP:Don't moon the jury. Mathsci (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but to be fair, the final question - why the people are dancing - has been pondered in tens of thousands of pages over the past 200 years. :P MastCell  05:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Perhaps they are Royalists and, having taken Marie-Antoinette too literally, have overdosed on brioches. These things happen and the results can be disastrous. If she had said vol-au-vents, the course of history might have been quite different. Mathsci (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Going after Hersfold now. . .classy and typical (Oh no! it's another cabal). Btw, nice topical pic Mathsci. R. Baley (talk) 05:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think an FOF about Abd's personal attacks (on-wiki and off) is in order, particularly in light of the hypocrisy of his applauding the no personal attacks warning while simultaneously making them where the warning doesn't apply. I'll suggest one myself if nobody else does. Raul654 (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Speaking to R Baley's comment above -- I'm wondering if there should be a suggested FOF about Abd's tactic if claiming to be in disputes with everyone he deals with in order to avoid admin action. Raul654 (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, enough everyone. This section was for commenting on the warning above, not for compounding on problems on another site. Back to editing. Hersfold 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Away

I will be out for the next week, returning late on August 11th. Should you need clerk assistance, please contact another clerk or email them all at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. I will try to check in as I can, but unfortunately I can't make any guarantees. I believe the Proposed Decision page will be opening soon, so keep an eye out for that (remembering that only Arbs and Clerks should be editing that page). See you all in a week or so. Hersfold 04:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this has been asked and answered somewhere else but has another clerk been assigned to this case to cover for Hersfold while away? I'm not sure if anything can be done about my next question but I'm going to ask anyways with hopes of a response. I'm having real difficulties downloading the workshop project page. I am assuming it's due to how large it is and it's not going to get any smaller. If the length of the page is what is making my computer take so long to download or, which is now happening today more frequently, freezing up my page due to the lenth, would moving some of the soapboxing and chatter be appropriate to move to the talk page? I don't frequent arbcom cases so I don't know what the norm is for this. Is it normal to hide conversations because of length plus have a shorter version like what is going on? My computer is telling me it's having problems downloading pictures but the globe can be seen so I am thinking that the hide sections are causing this. Anyone understanding what I am trying to say have any ideas? If more appropriate I've also asked this at my talk. I would love to continue with iVoting but can't. I've cleared my browser out and also have defragged my own computer, is there something else I should be doing on my end. I want to continue being able to voice my opinions since Abd dragged my name into his imaginary cabal claims. Thanks in advance for any help or ideas. --CrohnieGal 14:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Temporary solution:

I've copied the workshop page to here in sections. You can read it here (I hope). Of course, it will get out of date. You can put your responses in these pages or elsewhere, and ask me on my talk page to transfer them into the workshop page, which I will do if I have time; otherwise maybe someone else will.

• User talk:Coppertwig/Workshop part 1
• User talk:Coppertwig/Workshop part 2
• User talk:Coppertwig/Workshop part 3
• User talk:Coppertwig/Workshop part 4
• User talk:Coppertwig/Workshop part 5

I'll see what else I can do to help solve this. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I've asked a clerk for help. . ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, I see you've been posting to the workshop page. Do the browser loading problems seem to have been solved? I've replaced some collapse boxes with diff links; I hope that helps. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A question regarding related ban violations

Something has occurred to me, regarding Hipocrite. Are the following edits not a violation of his community endorsed ban: , , , , , , , , and ?

It is claimed that the discussion here demonstrates community support for a ban, which according to the section title is a "ban of two editors from Cold Fusion". To the extent that this is true it then establishes a community ban, as distinct from WMC's administrative ban, which was clearly scoped at 1 month by the closing administrator (in subsequent discussions). Does WMC have the authority to unilaterally lift such a community ban without further discussion? I agree he can lift his administrative ban, but I question whether he can actually lift the community ban unilaterally. How is it that Hipocrite is not in violation of this community ban if it truly was an actionable discussion? Thoughts?

I think that Hipocrite should be made a party to this proceeding so that these issues may be considered more fully. --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The community does not seem to have had any problems with those edits at the time, so the assertion that Hipocrite was community banned would be difficult to support. --TS 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This just looks like pointless troublemaking. From my point of view, the community ban never really existed. I can see no functional evidence of its existence. I can demonstrate functional evidence of my bans existence William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Tony's viewpoint

I'm inclined to take a parsimonious view of this case: a problem arose on an article talk page, mainly because of an editor's mode of interaction. He disputes the means of resolution and will not accept community consensus. The Committee can best end this dispute by endorsing that consensus and restating its warning to the editor in another case, that he should take notice of feedback from other users.

I would also suggest to other editors that if a single person makes longwinded, low-quality contributions on a talk page over a long period this does not necessarily merit a response on the page. If he makes valid points they will be echoed by others, if his points are of no merit they can be ignored. Either way his contributions do not all have to be read and taken notice of on the talk page. It takes two to make a dispute, and it takes more than one dissent to break consensus. --TS 18:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the situation: it's not that there was consensus among other editors and his was the lone voice in opposition; were that the case he could indeed be easily ignored and his posts not read. No, it's more complicated than that; there was no consensus and he was impeding the process of developing consensus by insisting that his view was the consensus view, and insisting that anyone with a different view had either been in a prior dispute with him or that they were biased (meaning disagreeing with him); in either case their view could be discounted in determining consensus. And since rather than just voicing an opinion, he was insisting on managing the process himself, which evoked protests from other editors (as shown by many diffs in my evidence section) it would have been kind of hard to ignore him. I think somewhere on the workshop page is a proposed principle to the effect that consensus isn't determined by default, in other words by driving off or ignoring everyone who disagrees with you until your opinion is the only one left. Part of Abd's central charge in bringing this case (I know, hard to lose track in the blizzard of extraneous material) was that Connelly showed his bias, or his involvement, or something, by reverting to a version that was "contrary to consensus." If you look at the evidence, or better yet, look at the talk page yourself from June 4-6 or so, you'll see that there was no consensus, and that the disruption was caused by Abd trying to get everyone to quit voicing their differing opinions so he could declare consensus. This is a very different situation than what you're describing here. Woonpton (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It occurs to me that my use of the term "consensus" in the above was ambiguous. I referred principally to his refusal to accept the consensus that he was banned from the talk page.

My second paragraph was a poorly thought out attempt to generalize, and I accept that Abd became difficult to ignore. Abd's attempt to manage the process while himself lacking insight into his own biases reminds me of the first Cool Cat case, in which an inexperienced editor lacking interpersonal skills attempted to set himself up as an informal mediator ona subject on which he had considerable bias.

A finding that Abd's interactions on the talk page were disruptive may be sustainable, in which case traditionally a topic ban would be the remedy. --TS 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it looks as if we are indeed on the same page, thanks for clarifying. And I agree about the finding; If such a finding hasn't been proposed it should be; there certainly is plenty of evidence to support it. Woonpton (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

done. Both the interactions in the talk page and the edits in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)