Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2/Proposed decision

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive and 2 who are recused, so 6 support votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1-2	5
3-4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Temp desysop of William M. Connolley

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators and 1 is recused, so 7 votes are a majority.

1) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is temporarily desysopped pending the final outcome of this arbitration for blocking Abd (talk · contribs), block here, during this arbitration case, which they were both parties to at the time and have an involved history with one another.

Support:

1. Proposer. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
2. No question. Wizardman 15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Am satisfied with the assurance given here: Arbcomm [...] has now told me not to block Abd during this case. I think that is the wrong decision, but I admit Arbcomm has the right to make it, so will abide by it." Carcharoth (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Carcharoth and per the fact that we apparently will have the proposed decision available for voting within the next couple of days, during which all issues can be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
3. per above. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Discussion

• Awaiting any indications from WMC as to whether he will repeat this sort of behaviour. If he agrees not to do this again, then I think we can let the case proceed without a temporary desysop. It might also be an idea for Abd and WMC to voluntarily stay away from the cold fusion talk page for the duration of this case, and limit their interaction to the case pages. Some of those presenting evidence against either party might also want to avoid blocking any of the other participants (we shouldn't really need to tell people this), or getting too involved at the cold fusion talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Isn't this more of a temporary injunction, since it expires at the end of the case and doesn't directly affect the case itself? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I was actually just wondering that myself. hmwitht 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I could make a reasonable argument either way, but on balance I would say that a majority should be required to request a steward to desysop (temporarily or otherwise, so it would be a motion). A slight rewording—User:Foo is directed not to use administrator tools until the case is resolved—would be more clearly an injunction. In any event, given the current vote, in this instance it doesn't really matter so much. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Decorum

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Though "is inappropriate" would leave admins with discretion in grey areas. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Standard. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I have been called upon in the past (and on this occasion privately) to explain why I tend to simply not vote on this particular principle. I believe that the word "prohibit" implies a bright line over which one cannot cross; however, several of the examples given don't really have clearly delineated bright lines and are dependent on situation-specific factors. Nonetheless, I believe that the behaviours identified are not conducive to effective and appropriate editing of the encyclopedia. Now that I have explained my position, I will resume not voting on this principle when it appears again in the future. Risker (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

   Perhaps you could suggest a reworded version that you could support? Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

   How about replacing "is prohibited" may result in sanctions if deemed disruptive enough." ? Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

   I may propose an alternative in the future. This isn't the case to do it. Risker (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages

2) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. I support this (which is to be expected as I once wrote it), but I'd prefer to see it posted lower in the section, as I wouldn't want to suggest that problematic editor behavior on our own pages is of greater concern than problematic behavior elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Per Newyorkbrad. I support this principle, but the conduct seen on the arbitration pages is part of the continuum of behaviour that is of concern and thus not as central as some of the other principles. Risker (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Sets a bad example for those following cases, so standards here should be as high as elsewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bans

3) A ban is a formal revocation of a user's editing privileges on Wikipedia, or on a page or group of pages within Wikipedia. A ban may be of fixed or of indefinite duration.

Bans may be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, by administrators implementing discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee, or by the community.

Support:

1. Policy as it stands does not authorise administrators to impose bans by themselves, absent available discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia policy need not be written - the description follows the accepted practice - but there needs to be some actual indication that a practice is indeed widely accepted and utilised before it can be considered policy. For example, one would expect to see substantial evidence of the practice being used and supported, or well-received efforts to document the practice. In this case there has been no indication shown that there is such a widely accepted and utilised practice. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Disagree that admin can not use their tools to assist editors of articles by doing blocks or page bans. On Wikipedia policy is written that describes practices after they become commonly uses, but that does not prevent people from using their tools in reasonable ways that have the support of many people when they hear about it later. This seems to go against the community ethos that we should try out new efforts. And I don't see how anything new and not ever tried before could ever done if people are not allowed to do it because it is against policy. I'm not going to tie the hands of admins by telling them that they are wrong to do any action that is sensible and get wide support later. Every admin action can be undone if needed by someone else after review on the appropriate notice board. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. per Flo. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. So long as the admins are acting sensibly, Flo's right. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Part of the reason administrators are expected the ordeal of Requests for Adminship is that they are, traditionally and in practice, given a fairly liberal leeway in "preventing disruption"; I see the application of a page or topic ban as a reasonable alternative to an outright block when disruption is centered in a specific area, and the imposition of such to fall within administrator discretion (and, indeed, subject to the same standard of review as other administative acts). — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Bainer is correct that the actual written ban policy does not presently encompass the concept of a "page ban" or "topic ban" outside the context of arbitration enforcement. Although Abd's behavior in precipitating this case has been regrettable in many respects, as is discussed below in the findings, he has correctly identified this omission in the written policy, which should be fixed. It is nonetheless true—Thatcher has marshalled some examples on the talkpage—that such administrator-imposed page bans or topic bans have been part of de facto policy for some time, and have been generally recognized as such. It would create a mess for this committee to suddenly declare all of these page bans or topic bans invalid or suspect, and an injustice to all the administrators and other editors who have relied upon them. The appropriate way forward is contained in remedy 6, which urges the community to decide upon and document our policies in this area. As a more general comment, despite all our dozens of policy and guideline pages which in some ways seek to overly micromanage the site, eight years into the project there are still some surprising gaps in documenting, or even agreeing on, matters of basic policy concerning blocks and bans. See the long discussion a couple of months ago on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests regarding blocking/unblocking protocols, which I unfortunately cannot now locate in the archives, for an example that is worthy of further attention. But then again, how much of policy should be documented, as opposed to allowed develop over time from practice and experience, it itself a deep question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   The examples given were of the community discussing and then imposing bans, which is a different kettle of fish. They cannot support any finding that unwritten policy has diverged here. --bainer (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Pretty much per all the above, though Bainer is technically correct, this is a de facto policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Newyorkbrad.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm not seeing either position as entirely correct. The examples identified by Thatcher on the talk page generally involve discussion amongst a group of disinterested editors and administrators, either before the ban is implemented or supporting the ban following its implementation and announcement to the community. I agree with Newyorkbrad that the project would benefit from a community discussion of what practices should be encouraged. Risker (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Risker. Some admins have the clue needed to impose such page or topic bans, but some don't. I would prefer community discussions be held to clarify exactly how this sort of process should work. In addition, one of the drawbacks of community-imposed bans is the possibility that too many of those commenting are involved in the dispute. Some of those involved are needed to present the case for a topic ban, but really, decisions should be taken by those not involved in the dispute (ArbCom and mediation are the classic example of a panel of uninvolved users attempting to resolve a dispute). ANI discussions have different and sometimes wildly variant standards - how to fairly appeal a community-imposed topic ban is not clear. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Community bans

4) A community ban can originate from a consensus among uninvolved users during a discussion in an appropriate venue, such as the administrators' noticeboard. Alternatively, if an administrator has blocked a user, and a discussion of that block among uninvolved users in an appropriate venue reaches a consensus not to unblock the user, then the user may be considered banned for the duration of the block (unless the consensus is to alter the duration).

The possibility that a community ban may result from a consensus not to reverse a block does not absolve administrators of the obligation to exercise the blocking tool only in accordance with the blocking policy.

Support:

1. Further detail in relation to the above proposal. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Yeah, but def. prefer 4.1. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. This is correct, but from my experience "a consensus among uninvolved users" and the use of "an appropriate venue" is rare - more commonly, the discussion is at a drama-filled location, and includes involved users, who are deemed to form part of the consensus. Rather than have fresh opinions at each stage of dispute resolution, what happens is more like a snowball growing bigger and bigger, with new opinions added on top of the older ones. This makes resolution of disputes much more difficult than it needs to be. Genuinely fresh and uninvolved opinions should be encouraged, and those asking for a review or endorsement of a previous decision should be able to step back after presenting their case, and trust that the right decision is made, as opposed to the dispute being rehashed between the same people with only a few new voices joining in. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I fear that this formulation confusingly interchanges the concept of overall blocks or bans with page bans or topic bans; 4.1 below is better in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Newyorkbrad. The concepts of topic/page bans and blocks are very different points on the continuum of user-specific dispute resolution and sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Newyorkbrad.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

The issue is a page or topic ban. Whether or whether not it was done by a single admin first and later discussed or done by the single admin alone and never discussed is not vastly different than when a single admin give blocks of varying lengths to enforce a problem with editing on an article, and no other admin comments on it before hand. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Not sure where we're going with this one. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. 4.1 does the trick better. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia page or topic bans

4.1) A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. When enacting an editing restriction that includes a ban on an editor, administrators should take reasonable steps to ensure that the editor is notified of the particulars of the ban and its duration. Editors that are page or topic banned from a section of Wikipedia are expected to cease contributing to that area. User account blocks may be used to enforce violation of page or topic bans. Any user can bring an administrator action up for review in the relevant noticeboard. The community can, among other things, lift the block/ban, endorse it or extend it in time and/or scope.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 16:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. This is a reasonably accurate summary of current practice, which I can support subject to the comment that it may be superseded by a community-developed policy (compare proposed remedy 6). As a matter of semantics, I think the word "ban" is now going to be perpetually ambiguous, because on a sitewide basis, a single administrator can only impose a "block" (consensus, explicit or presumed, being required for a "ban"); but we are effectively recognizing that a single administrator can impose a page ban or topic ban (no one refers to a "topic block", even though this might actually be a better remedy for something like isolated 3RR violations). But I suppose it is too late to untangle the nomenclature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Mostly support, but would disagree with "Any user can bring an administrator action up for review in the relevant noticeboard" - this wording is too loose. The initial review should be brought up by the user who has been topic or page banned. Cases where the banning admin, or a user supporting the ban, brings a ban to a community noticeboard for review, can appear like the seeking of an endorsement, which is dynamically different to a review. In effect, it is a double-whammy, first the admin imposes a ban, then someone else or that admin gets the ban rubber-stamped by the community. That is not how independent reviews of a ban are meant to work. The only way the community can properly review a ban is if they have the information presented to them properly, by both the banning admin and the person who is banned. I would also quibble with "reasonable steps" - in my view, talk page notification of such bans, and logging them somewhere, is a must. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Prefer 4. Second choice. The other version's emphasis on uninvolved editors is an extremely important, and much neglected, point that distinguishes between a lynch mob and a discussion. I do not think it can be overstated how disruptive it is for highly involved editors to overwhelm noticeboards threads and/or give an inaccurate appearance of broader consensus. This is particularly problematic in conduct reports and at the content noticeboards. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Mostly inoffensive but implies administrators acting alone can impose bans. --bainer (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I support the description of page or topic bans, the method for enforcing them, and the manner in which they can be lifted by the community. I am not entirely persuaded that the community supports individual administrators applying page or topic bans without some degree of participation/discussion from the broader community. Risker (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of administrator tools in a dispute

5) An administrator must not use his or her administrator tools to further the administrator's position in a dispute.

Support:

1. Standard. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
4. That is sine qua non, and grounds for removal of the privilege in itself. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. As a matter of copyediting, I've changed "administrative tools" to "administrator tools". Any editor can perform some administrative tasks on the site; only administrators hold administrator (adj.) access privileges. This has been a pet semantic peeve of mine for three years, but Bainer or any other arbitrator can change the wording back if desired, and I'll try not to grit my teeth too audibly. I've also rewritten around "singular they", which I'm sorry, but still grates on my unbearably; no matter how desirable it would be to have such a construction to aid us all in writing gender-neutral prose, maybe I'm just too old to get used to it. Substantively, we've discussed caveats and exceptions to this formulation of the principle in prior cases, but I can accept the articulation here as a general principle, overlooking some infrequent exceptions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Naturally. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Basic point. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Avoiding apparent impropriety

6) All editors, and especially administrators, should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an administrator repeatedly making administrator actions that might reasonably be construed as reinforcing the administrator's position in a content dispute, even where the administrator actually has no such intention; or an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Support:

1. Originally proposed by FloNight on the workshop, a fine proposal. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Appearance of conflict of interest is just as damaging as conflict of interest. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. This is adapted from a principle that I first introduced in the C68-FM-SV case, and a review of my explanation on the workshop there, as well as the second paragraph of the principle as adopted there (and which is omitted here) might be helpful to those with doubts about the principle. I am sensitive to the concern, expressed on the talkpage of this case, that the aspect about "repeated editing" could be misused to penalize legitimate confluence of interests or agreement among regular editors on a topic. The principle aims at reasonable, legitimate, long-term concerns expressed in good faith that something untoward is going on. Although this aspect can be included in the statement of the principle here for completeness, I see no evidence that any behavior of this nature is involved in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support in general, although I am a bit concerned about the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry section, and concur with Newyorkbrad's comments above. Risker (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Would like to reiterate my view here that the same people being attracted to similar disputes as they rise through the levels of dispute resolution can give the appearance of "the usual suspects", but is in fact normal behaviour. Still, getting fresh opinions is vital to avoid any appearance of impropriety. One way to encourage fresh opinions is to improve conduct during the disputes. People are far less likely to give an opinion on an ill-tempered dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Good faith and disruption

7) Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive.

Support:

1. Originally proposed by FloNight on the workshop. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 23:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Although all the relevant circumstances, including the motivation for the behavior and whether it is short- or long-term and continues despite warnings and advice, should be taken into account in determining a response to the behavior, including if necessary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Concur, although review of the situation should not stop with the application of sanctions and should include examination of the underlying situation. Risker (talk) 03:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8. With the above caveats. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Per NYB. Vassyana (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

8) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is a purported topic ban applied to Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and several associated disputes, in relation to editorial disputes on the cold fusion article and conflicts on its talk page.

The cold fusion article was also the locus of dispute in the cold fusion arbitration in December 2008.

Support:

1. Minor modification from the workshop. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice; per the opposers' concerns, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Not a "topic ban" but a page ban. And can not support the word "purported" since I think that the page bans were a sensible reaction to the problems on the article and article talk page, and heavily supported by the Community later. Will offer an alternative wording. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Per Flo. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
3. The use of "purported" begs the question as to the propriety of the ban. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Use of the word "purported" is a deal breaker. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Prefer 1.1. Risker (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Locus of dispute

1.1) The locus of this dispute is a page ban applied to Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and several associated disputes, in relation to editorial disputes on the cold fusion article.

The cold fusion article was also the locus of dispute in the cold fusion arbitration in December 2008.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 17:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Simple and accurate description. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Events leading to this case

Recent disputes

2) In May 2009, Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Abd were involved in an edit war on cold fusion [1] leading William M. Connolley to protect the page [2].

On 31 May and 1 June 2009, edit warring on cold fusion involving a number of users [3] led Causa sui (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to protect the page for two weeks [4].

Support:

1. Problems on the article have continued following the cold fusion case, involving different editors. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. That article is a recurring battleground. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Carcharoth (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

William M. Connolley's reversion

3) On 5 June, William M. Connolley edited through protection on cold fusion [5], reverting to a version from three weeks earlier [6]. This course of action had been proposed by GoRight on the talk page (Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_33#A_simple_proposal.3F).

At the time there were multiple active discussions on talk:cold fusion concerning the state of the article, including multiple suggestions to revert to earlier versions of the article, but there was disagreement and confusion over the form of the discussions taking place, and there was no consensus on what course of action to take with respect to the article.

Support:

1. This I don't have so much of a problem with. Reverting to a prior supported version as a circuit breaker in an editorial dispute is a fine approach. Many times an article will be protected in circumstances where none of two or more competing versions are supported. The only criticism here would be that William M. Connolley might have waited longer after GoRight's suggestion to gather more input. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Factually correct. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice, prefer 3.1 (I take it these proposals are alternatives). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Second choice, prefer 3.1. Risker (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
6. I don't think these two findings are alternatives, nor should they be voted on as alternatives. If they both get support, they should both pass. They describe the same dispute, but focus on different things. This one correctly identifies the role talk page discussion (or failure of said discussions) played. The second one focuses on WMC's edit and edit summary. Two different findings of facts, not alternatives. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Equal to 3.1, both can pass IMHO. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
8. Second choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Equal preference. Both are accurate. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. First para is fine, second I am not so sure about. Abd was main objector, others had accepted it (??) Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley’s controversial action as an administrator

3.1) On 5 June, William M. Connolley edited through protection on cold fusion [7], reverting to a version from three weeks earlier [8] with the edit summary "Lets [sic] wind everyone up", an action and comment that needlessly escalated the dispute.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 17:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice. Under all the circumstances, I find the edit summary more problematic than the edit itself. Note that the paragraph title here is vague and could use clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Newyorkbrad. (This was not William M. Connolley's only controversial action as an administrator, so I would prefer a more precise title to the paragraph.) Risker (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Support this in addition to the previous finding of fact. I see these two as separate findings, not alternatives. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
8. First choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Equal preference. Both are accurate. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Adapted from FloNight's proposal on the workshop. I personally don't have so much of a problem with this action but I can see how it would be seen as problematic by many others. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's actions on cold fusion article

3.2) On 5 June, William M. Connolley edited through protection on cold fusion [9], reverting to a version from three weeks earlier [10] with the edit summary "Lets [sic] wind everyone up", an action and comment that had the potential to needlessly escalate the dispute.

Support:

1. First choice. Alternative wording provided after WMC raised an objection on the proposed decision talk page (second paragraph of that diff). I've also retitled the finding to be more descriptive and less vague. I am mindful that Brad said this case should be closed sooner rather than later, but with several arbitrators away without having marked themselves inactive, we are stuck. Carcharoth (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Um, okay. The other one was fine i thought, 2nd choice. Wizardman 01:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. We know from the facts we have before us that the dispute was escalated with these actions, none of which were particularly necessary. Using the phrase "had the potential" is not helpful, when the potential appears to have been met. Risker (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
2. 3.1 is more accurate. — Coren ^(talk) 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per Risker. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Risker.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Risker. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Purported topic bans

4) On 6 June, William M. Connolley purported to impose topic bans on Hipocrite and Abd from cold fusion and its talk page, for an indefinite duration "of approximately one month, during which time we'll see if a stable version developes [sic]" [11]. He then removed the full protection on the article and replaced it with semi-protection [12].

William M. Connolley did not purport to ban Hipocrite and Abd on the basis of any discretionary sanctions, and was not implementing any community consensus, and as such had no authority to impose any ban.

A subsequent administrators' incidents noticeboard discussion on 11 and 12 June (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion) approved a topic ban on Abd from cold fusion and its talk page for one month.

The purported topic ban as against Hipocrite was removed by William M. Connolley on 24 June [13].

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

While WMC did not handle the situation as well as I might hope that he would, I want admins to work in these disputes and help settle them down. I see no reason that every action by an admin needs to be discussed up front. This would needlessly delay find a resolution in many cases. If any editor wants to have an admin action reviewed, then they can make a request on a notice board. This interpretation of policy would make it impossible for admin to try creative new ways to deal with a situations or to IAR when it is needed. Instead of blocking an user, a page ban is very reasonable as many people said when they saw it. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Flo sums it up well. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 01:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Again, I feel that such a page ban falls entirely within the discretion afforded to administrator, and stands out as a measured response to stabilize the article. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Per FloNight and Coren. Depending on which other findings are adopted, it might be desirable for one of them to write a substitute finding that would summarize these events so that the decision reflects the chronology. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Per FloNight and Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Per FloNight, but with my previously stated caveat that it should be the sanctioned editor asking for a review, not "any editor", which in this case was someone else taking the incident to a noticeboard. That risks getting it rubber-stamped, or being done to pre-empt further interaction between the user and the admin. If a user is going to breach a ban, let the user and the admin sort things out instead of someone else needlessly escalating the dispute to a noticeboard. Only if the editor so-banned wants a review, should it go to a noticeboard. Furthermore, the practice of admins taking their actions to a noticeboard for review (which isn't what happened in this case), though tempting as a "sanity check" is really missing the point. If you need a sanity check, you most likely shouldn't have done the action in the first place. Either stand by your action (while letting the banned user know their options for appeal), or undo it and let someone else take the action instead. Admins need to take responsibility for their actions, rather than deferring to a noticeboard (and to WMC's credit, that is what he did here, as it was not him that took this incident to ANI). Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Per Coren. If an administrator can implement a technical block to prohibit any editing outside of userspace, a lesser sanction such as a page ban seems appropriate. Since an editor so sanctioned is not prohibited from editing outside of userspace, they have more options in seeking outside review than a blocked editor. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not entirely accurate (page ban vs. topic ban), although I am not entirely persuaded that the community accepts page or topic bans done in isolation by administrators at this point. Risker (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Page bans

4.1) On 6 June, William M. Connolley placed a page ban on Hipocrite and Abd from cold fusion and its talk page, for an indefinite duration "of approximately one month, during which time we'll see if a stable version developes [sic]" [14]. He then removed the full protection on the article and replaced it with semi-protection [15].

A subsequent administrators' incidents noticeboard discussion on 11 and 12 June (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion) endorsed and reaffirmed the page ban placed by William M. Connolley for one month.

William M. Connolley then lifted the ban of Hipocrite on 24 June [16].

Support:

1. Timeline that does not presuppose that the ban was improper. — Coren ^(talk) 15:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
3. This timeline seems to be more accurate. I appreciate that it is not predicated on the appropriateness of the page bans. Risker (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
4. The timeline is accurate. Carcharoth's reservations about the community discussion do not render the finding inadequate. I would suggest that Carcharoth offer a separate proposal reflecting his concerns about the discussion, except that frankly it is past time to get the case closed, rather than introduce additional nuances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Timeline is correct, but in my view the community discussion had several crucial flaws: (1) It should not have been started by Enric Naval, but should have been started by Abd at a time of his chosing when he was ready to contest the ban; (2) It did not draw in enough opinions from uninvolved editors; (3) Abd's long posts disrupted it; (4) It was not open for long enough (though this was partly because Abd asked for it to be closed); (5) WMC was not given the opportunity to explain what had happened. The good point about the community discussion was that it was closed by an uninvolved administrator, but overall it was a drama-laden thread that was mostly a rehashing of previous stages of the dispute, with only a few new voices. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Nothing wrong with the timeline, but again, suggests that administrators acting alone can impose bans. --bainer (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. More accurate. Reservations per Carcharoth. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First block of Abd

5) On 15 June, Abd edited cold fusion to adjust a citation [17] and immediately self-reverted [18] with the edit summary "per ban". Two hours later, William M. Connolley blocked Abd for 24 hours for violating the topic ban [19].

As Abd was under a community topic ban at this point, he was liable, under the blocking policy, to be blocked for any edit made in violation of that ban. However, given the dispute between Abd and William M. Connolley about the latter's ability to unilaterally apply a topic ban, William M. Connolley should not have taken any enforcement action under the community ban.

Support:

1. A ban is a complete revocation of editing privileges: no editing whatsoever, even if one self-reverts one's changes. A block was entirely appropriate here. For William M. Connolley to perform the block himself was less than ideal, as that only provided an avenue for Abd to attempt to undermine the ban. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Flo's right, but there are plenty of administrators that could have looked over that. Wizardman 01:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. First choice, per Wizardman. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Presuming that a community topic ban was in place (though see my comments about that earlier), then yes, WMC's action did provide Abd with an avenue with which to undermine the ban. Stephen is quite right here - WMC should have stepped back and let others deal with it, not because of "involvement", but because of common sense and pragmatism (letting someone else deal with this would have avoided further drama). A tweak of the wording would emphasise the minimal point being made here: "less than ideal" (in Stephen's comment) is better than should not (in the finding). In other words, it would have been better if someone else had done the block. This is part of the judgment that admins are meant to display when considering such things. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
5. First choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Equal preference. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. The second paragraph spoils it. That the target of a sanction disagrees with the sanction is obviously no impediment to enforcement, and the ban having been endorsed soundly by the community reinforces its propriety. It might have been better for another admin to enforce in this case, but it does not render the block improper. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   If the wording was changed from William M. Connolley should not to it would have been better if William M. Connolley had not, would you be able to support that? Same question to all the abstainers. Carcharoth (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, that proposed wording would suffice for me to support the finding. — Coren ^(talk) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Can not agree with as worded. If the page ban was supported by the Community then that means that the ban put in place by WMC was helpful. While it is always nice when admins collaborate with each other when dealing with problem articles or a editing dispute, I don't think that every time that an admin is complained about then that admin must abstain. Only if the situation advance to true dispute resolution, then does that mean that an admin is too involved to act against an user. But I agree that it is best practice for another admin to do the block if one admin bans because it will give more support to the people working on the article. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Per Flo. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I would like to see an alternative formulation offered by one of the opposers or abstainers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Newyorkbrad. Perhaps this needs to be broken into two parts, the first dealing with Abd's actions and the second with the decision by WMC to make the block personally. Risker (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First block of Abd

5.1) On 15 June, in a clear violation of the community-endorsed page ban, Abd edited cold fusion to adjust a citation [20] and immediately self-reverted [21] with the edit summary "per ban". Two hours later, William M. Connolley blocked Abd for 24 hours for violating the page ban [22].

That Abd was, at the time, disputing the propriety of William M. Connolley placing the ban does not invalidate it, but it would have been better if another administrator had effected it.

Support:

1. The block was strictly correct on its face; as a ban means that no editing whatsoever is to take place (a fact that Abd was entirely aware of). I agree that it would have been best if a different admin had blocked given the dispute to reduce the potential for drama, however. — Coren ^(talk) 15:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Prefer my suggested tweak to Stephen's wording, but this is OK too (second choice). I changed "topic ban" to "page ban" in your wording above. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose to make my preference for finding 5 clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Weakly support I guess. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice. Wizardman 01:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

5. Second choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
6. I appreciate Newyorkbrad's point, but a ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Let's not enable them. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer wording of finding 5. Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I'm not convinced that this block made any sense. Banned means banned, but blocking for fixing an obvious typo does not strike me as particularly sensible, even if Abd's evident motivation were to create a dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 12:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Conduct during this case and during the request for arbitration

Edit-warring on the request for arbitration

6) On 14 July, Abd, Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and William M. Connolley edit-warred on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case over the list of parties to the request for arbitration that resulted in this case: Abd, Mathsci (with uncivil edit summary), Abd, Mathsci, Abd, William M. Connolley.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 01:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Noting that I find Mathsci's edit summary mildly incivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Rlevse.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Moving to support (from oppose). I still recognise and accept Abd's explanation here, but the correct parts of this finding (Mathsci and WMC edit warring) should not fail merely because of that. I would normally have proposed different wording, and should have done so earlier, but this case is close to closing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I didn't think Mathsci's edit summary was incivil, just exasperated. As well, the background as to why Abd was pushing for his inclusion isn't there, hence no context. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I find that this incident, while regrettable, is insufficient to support an arbitration finding. Also, our procedures regarding addition or removal of parties to a case that is still in the accept-or-decline phase are not entirely clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Poor behaviour, I agree, but not at the level for an arbitration finding. Risker (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to support this finding. Explained above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Abd's explanation that he wasn't edit warring rings true (he says he thought he had forgotten to add Mathsci, and added him while adding the notification diffs). The diffs and timeline back this up. I do think that WMC and Mathsci were edit warring, as they should have asked a clerk to deal with it, not take it into their own hands. This lack of restraint by Mathsci and WMC is inexplicable really, but maybe shows the level of frustration they were feeling. I would support a finding that named WMC and Mathsci, and left out Abd. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Correct, but too incomplete for me to support. Without better context, the meaning of this finding is opaque. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing comments of other editors and edit-warring on case pages

7) On 21 July, William M. Connolley removed a comment by Abd from the workshop with the edit summary "rm poorly indendted rambling junk. put it in your own bit" [23]. After it was restored, and after being advised to contact a clerk, he edit-warred to remove it twice more [24], [25].

Support:

1. Even putting aside general Wikipedia practice that other users' comments are not to be edited, there are easily visible instructions posted on several locations on the various arbitration pages instructing users not to edit other users' comments, and to contact an arbitrator or clerk if they have any questions or problems. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Technically, yes. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 01:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Disagree with Risker and Brad. This does warrant an arbitration finding. It clearly shows the lack of restraint exercised by WMC, and a failure to follow the instructions clearly laid out at the arbitration pages. This same attitude, in my opinion, is what led to the dispute around the various blocks. The same pattern, though with mitigating factors of having to deal with a high level of frustration. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Disagreeing with NYB and Risker, I believe it is highly relevant behavior as it occured during the course of the case on the case pages. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Untoward and unhelpful behavior, that worsened an already difficult situation—but not sufficient in my view to warrant an arbitration finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Definitely not ideal behaviour, but not at the level of an arbitration finding. Risker (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Per my colleagues.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Second block of Abd

8) Following the expiration of the topic ban against him, Abd voluntarily submitted to an extension of that ban. On 8 August, he withdrew this submission, and on 9 August made an edit to Talk:cold fusion. William M. Connolley then reverted Abd, and blocked him for 24 hours, with the action summary "Violation of ban at t:Cold Fusion". On Abd's talk page, William M. Connolley said:

"I've blocked you for 24h for violation of the ban, and reverted your edit. If you want to edit there, you need to get someone other than yourself to overturn the ban. You could, for example, ask for an injunction at the Arbcomm case - that would be a fairly obvious remedy. Or you could have asked me. But instead you chose to test the limits; well, now you know".

All of these actions took place during this case.

Support:

1. I have rarely seen anything as outrageous as a party to an arbitration case blocking another party during the case, even without the element of ignoring the community consensus (as assessed by Heimstern). --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 01:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. That was a very poor decision. Even if we fully grant the propriety of the block itself, that it be made by a party to a case towards another party is supremely improper. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. I don't know whether Abd was being intentionally provocative, but if so, William M. Connolley should have resisted the provocation. I won't go so far as one of my colleagues who described this as the most outrageous thing he had ever seen ... but it was not good. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. This is the epitome of an involved block and IIRC is unprecedented vis a vis an arb case party blocking the opposing party in the case. This should have been reported to the arb clerks or AE and handled that way. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 04:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8. WMC should have known better here, but as noted above, this is part of a larger pattern of lack of self-restraint. There are mitigating factors, in my view, particularly that Abd was clearly being provocative (unlike with the defence over the edit-warring on the list of parties to the case, I'm not prepared to assume good faith here). But this doesn't excuse WMC's actions. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal attacks

9) Abd and Mathsci have engaged in personal attacks upon each other during public discussion of this case in an off-wiki venue.

Support:

1. In general what Wikipedia editors do off-site is their own business, but I do not think it appropriate for two editors engaged in an arbitration case to 'take it outside' in this fashion. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Needs a diff or link. Casliber (talk • contribs) 06:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Cas. Wizardman 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. The reference is to an ongoing thread on the external site Wikipedia Review, but I do not believe that these editors' participation in that thread warrants mention in this decision or any sanction. To be sure, it is well-agreed that sanctions may be imposed on-wiki for off-wiki interaction or commentary, including on other websites, that is in the nature of threats, harassment, publication of personal information, and the like. (I wrote our leading decision on this issue, which is Jim62sch, and I recently favored the extension of a remedy from a prior case based upon behavior that I saw as being of this nature.) MastCell, on the talkpage, has linked to the principle that I think is most relevant here. To date, though, I have not seen any claim, let alone evidence, that any of the colloquy between these editors on Wikipedia Review falls into these categories. (A small amount of it was even helpful; Abd, in one of his Wikipedia Revew posts, summed up his position on the issues in this case in a far more straightforward and readable fashion than he has done in any of his posts on Wikipedia itself.) While I might wish that Wikipedia Review had different civility expectations than it sometimes does, we should not judge behavior on Wikipedia Review by the standards of Wikipedia. And particularly not in this instance, where neither of the parties mentioned appears to have raised any issue about the off-wiki discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Not sure which prior case Brad is referring to, but agree with him and MastCell. Carcharoth (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

   Jim62sch and C68-FM-SV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

6.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Lack of link makes this unsupportable. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Awaiting diffs. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abd’s style of discussion

10) Abd's style of discussion has made it difficult for other editors to work with him.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 01:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. It is just too many words, too much, too often, and despite being begged by seemingly dozens of people to tone it down. To be fair, gosh knows that I use too many words myself sometimes. But to be even slightly tolerable, long posts hopefully have a beginning point, an endpoint, and a coherent argument along a guiding path somewhere in the middle. And there should only be one or two of them on a given page on a given topic, rather than, as I have written on the talkpage, eleventeen. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Abd has repeatedly ignored the requests of multiple editors (some of whom even agree with him) to be more concise, less repetitive, and to state his opinion once rather than hrair times. There is an expectation that an editor advised of problems in his method of communication will make at least some effort to change the behaviour. Risker (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8. A pity in my view, because among the noise there are some good comments. I'll quote what MastCell said here: "You make good points at times, but they are buried within a stream of consciousness that leaves other editors at a loss to respond to them". However, per principle 7 in this case: "Inappropriate behavior driven by good intentions is still inappropriate. Users acting in good faith may still be sanctioned when their actions are disruptive." Carcharoth (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. This is a key aspect of the broader disputes and frustration surrounding Abd. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Abd tendentious editing

11) Abd (talk · contribs) has tendentiously edited the cold fusion article. 1; 2; 3; 4; 5

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 17:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 01:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. It is clear that Abd does not attempt to cover the topic neutrally, but to advocate for a specific position. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Some edits were defensible, but others were troublesome. It is not clear to me whether Abd has a point of view of his own on cold fusion, or whether he believes he is doing the right thing by counteracting what he considers majority POV-pushing by others, but in either event he has overplayed the position. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Without speculating on motive, I find Abd's editing to be tendentious. Risker (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
8. In agreement with Newyorkbrad. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. From FloNight's proposals on the workshop. The major ingredients in this evidence are assertions grounded in long-term "pro" and "anti" mainstream science disputes that touch on this subject area among others, and I don't think this supports the proposed finding. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. In my view, it is Abd's style of editing here that is the problem, not the very real source issues he is raising. He may ultimately be "wrong", but an organised FAQ and response to those questions is needed, not just dismissing what has been said because Abd said it. Look to others who say things in a more comprehensible way than Abd. It is also my view that both sides here have edited tendentiously, and that both sides have driven people away by their behaviour. In my view, supporting a finding of fact like this risks coming down on one side in a content dispute, and that is not what ArbCom is for. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

I need to study the diffs a bit longer on this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

*I will return to this one after further review; however, I do not wish to abstain and alter the majority for this question. Risker (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Have now voted. Risker (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of a cabal

12) There is no evidence of collusion or other improper collaboration among the various users Abd has alleged to be part of a cabal, nor did Abd attempt to provide any such evidence.

Support:

1. Slightly modified from the workshop. The allegations were initially, and have remained, unsupported by anything other than assertions on Abd's part. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 01:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. That people are agreeing against one's position does not mean they are conspiring to do so. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. It might be worth adding that the term "cabal" has severely negative connotations on Wikipedia, and except in humorous contexts, should generally not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Nothing that I've carefully reviewed the opposers' comments and agree with the substance of their concerns as a general theoretical matter, but also reiterating that sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of problems was not adduced in this case (and certainly could not be discerned among all the other verbiage). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

6. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

   Switching to oppose. Explanation below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC) It may look like a cabal, but it is not, in my view. What it seems to be is editors with the same viewpoints being drawn to the same discussions, and editing in a way consistent with their independent views. While this is not a cabal, when the same disputes get rehashed time and time again with the same people, something does suffer in the process. What is needed is fresh new views, and people willing to discuss sources and articles, rather than engage in battleground mentality. Not everyone does that, but some on each side do stray that way, and Wikipedia and its articles suffer for that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While technically true, I see the resulting implications of this finding to be extremely inaccurate. In that context, this is an inappropriate complete exoneration. There is certainly a kernel of truth to the concerns in that there is a certain indentifiable group that appears to act in a mutually supporting fashion. While this is often innocuous and for the good of the project, that is not always the case. The most obvious and inappropriate way this evidences itself is in community discussions where outside opinion is being solicited and/or should be heeded. Conduct threads and content policy consultations are commonly overwhelmed by involved opinion and regularly featured involved editors !voting and/or commenting as though they were uninvolved users providing an opinion. While we should indeed waive off the harsher accusations and extreme language of cabals and meatpuppetry, we should not do so in a way that implicitly endorses negative behavior falling under the spirit of the principles opposing cabalism and meatpuppetry. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree in large part with what Vassyana has said, which articulates part of what I was saying elsewhere on this page. The solution I think is for people to ask themselves, when looking over a discussion, questions such as to what extent different people are 'involved', and for such people to openly disclose prior involvements when contributing to noticeboard and other discussions. More than that should be left to the community or future cases. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Well, he sort of has with his assertions on his user subpage. This might need rewording. Maybe the addition of "firm", "unequivocal", "objective", or "reasonable" before the very last word of the wording above. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   Assertions are not evidence. --bainer (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd in violation of prior remedy

13) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, Abd was advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution. He has failed to follow that advice.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 17:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 01:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Although he did make some efforts to resolve his concerns on ANI this time ... and we did vote to accept the case he filed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Obvious. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Risker (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As the arbitrator who drafted that remedy in the prior case, I disagree that Abd did not change his behaviour. I've read what Abd has written here, and I think he did change some things. Clearly not enough, and he should have asked for guidance, but I can't support a bald assertion that he failed to follow the advice. The biggest mitigating factor, in my view, was that someone (Stephen, I think) said that Abd took too long to resolve his dispute with JzG. Abd clearly took that to heart more than anything else (he shouldn't have done, because it wasn't a formal part of the remedy). Well, let's make it clear this time that while Abd should not string things out, he should still seek guidance before engaging in dispute resolution, and he still needs to learn how to do it properly. However, given the level of support for this finding, I'm not going to offer an alternative wording unless anyone asks for it. Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. There was an error in the closure of that case, which we have failed to subsequently resolve, which resulted in two alternative proposals both being included in the final decision. The remedies are potentially contradictory, and in the absence of any indication as to what evidence this proposal is based on, I can't discount that here they are being used so as to enliven the contradiction. --bainer (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Insufficiently heeding advice is not quite the same as utterly failing to do so. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley’s use of administrator tools while involved

14) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, on a number of occasions, misused his administrator tools by acting while involved:

1. In January 2008, he edit warred with Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the article Shell to Sea ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]) before blocking him and then reverting to his preferred version.
2. In May 2008, he semi-protected the United States and state terrorism article and then reverted to his preferred version.
3. In May 2008, he blocked Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) while they were both involved in the Giovanni33 arbitration. Giovanni33 removed a comment on the workshop, William M. Connolley reverted him, and Giovanni33 reverted again. William M. Connolley blocked Giovanni33, and reverted once more.
4. In August 2008, in the Geogre-William M. Connolley case, William M. Connolley was found to have "inappropriately extended a block that he had made, because of incivility directed at himself [and] later inappropriately reapplied his block after it was reversed..."

Support:

1. Adapted from FloNight's proposals on the workshop and from evidence on the evidence page. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Definitely for 1,3, and 4. Still looking at 2 to make sense of it. Casliber (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 01:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Poor judgment all around. — Coren ^(talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Very poor judgment all around. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Not the perfect examples, but good enough of a selection to illustrate the issue. Vassyana (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not all of these examples are persuasive. For example, in (3), William M. Connolley blocked a user for violating a revert parole by repeatedly removing a comment on an arbitration workshop to the effect that certain comments had been made by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I do not consider that it was a violation of the blocking policy for William M. Connolley to reinstate the comment that had been wrongly removed. I also am not sure that he should be considered "involved" as an administrator in that matter. I agree with Casliber that it is difficult to tell at this remove just what was going on in (2). And (1) is too remote in time to be received as anything other than pure background information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Am of the opinion that the behaviour surrounding the case is sufficient for the remedies I will vote for. I'm only familiar with the fourth example above, but in my view that speaks to the ongoing pattern here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I don't think all of these examples are persuasive; however, I recall other situations where similar discussions took place that have not been put into evidence. Hence, I will abstain here. Risker (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

*I will return to this one after further review; however, I do not wish to abstain and alter the majority for this question. Risker (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Voted. Risker (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

14) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Discretionary sanctions

1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions.

Discretionary sanctions

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on an affected article if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeal of discretionary sanctions

Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Logging

All sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. That this is not the first case to have concerned disputes arising out of this article, and that these disputes involve different users, suggests that this is needed. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. Casliber (talk • contribs) 08:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 19:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Risker (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

   Note: Agree with Carcharoth that any actions under this should be logged at the cold fusion case. Perhaps one of our technical geniuses can jury rig a system where logging administrator actions related to this remedy are logged on either page, but still visible on both. Risker (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

8. Possibly the sanctions imposed under this should be logged at the cold fusion arbitration case page? I would also suggest a future stability review of the article (with a view to removing disruptive elements and/or assessing how successful the discretionary sanctions have been), possibly to include a finding as to how much progress has been made with a talk page FAQ and improving the article or buttressing it against repeated questions on the same topic. Carcharoth (talk) 04:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Abd placed under mentorship

2) Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Abd shall find a mentor of his choice, and shall inform the Committee once the mentor has been selected; if no mentor is found within one month of the closure of this case, the Committee will appoint a mentor. The terms of the mentorship must cover guidance on talk page discussion style, but otherwise Abd and the mentor are free to decide on the terms. Once an agreement on the term is reached, Abd or the mentor shall advise the Committee of the terms by email. The Committee retains discretion to alter or amend the terms of the mentorship, and to review the selection of the mentor.

Support:

1. Based on a provision in the ADHD case. The last sentence, added on to the workshop version, makes the implicit condition explicit. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with Stephen here. I suspect that mentorship would actually work if the right person is found. I don't think this should be rejected out of hand merely because arbitrators are becoming disenchanted with the concept of mentorship. What is needed is for arbitrators to become more engaged with mentorship and its possibilities, not less. The key is finding the right people. Carcharoth (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Support a remedy that will better address the problems that are highlighted during the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I doubt it will be effective. Need more direct remedies. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Arbcom-sanction mentorship isn't working too well from what I see, even if it was the right move. Wizardman 23:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. That seems neither useful nor sufficient. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. I'm not sure it'll work here and especially leery of him choosing his own mentor. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Not entirely persuaded that Abd is interested in, or willing to participate in, a mentorship process; if he is, then the alternative is preferable. Risker (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
7. Quite insufficient. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Still considering; will vote within the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Prefer alternative proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

* Additional variations on sanctions for Abd are currently being workshopped; I will await comment on those before voting, and do not wish to alter the majority for this question by abstaining. Risker (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Voted. Risker (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• There have been calls for, and proposals of, more severe sanctions for Abd. In my view the proposals are not based on any substantial or significant evidence of inappropriate editing on articles; rather they seem to be provoked primarily by content disagreements and personal disagreements. It's clear that Abd's discussion style renders it difficult for other editors to work with him, and in some cases, work on the articles he is discussing, and that needs to be remedied. I have proposed mentorship, as a (hopefully) constructive remedy, my preferred approach for editors with difficulties collaborating but who otherwise are or could be productive editors. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd placed under involuntary mentorship

2.1) Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under mentorship for a period of one year. Abd's mentor(s) shall be appointed by the Committee within one month of the closure of this case. The terms of the mentorship shall be based on the remedies passed in this case, and are to be documented by Abd and his mentor(s) on a designated page in Abd's userspace. Until the mentorship takes effect, Abd is banned from editing outside of his userspace, and may be blocked if he breaches this restriction. The Committee retains discretion to alter or amend the terms of the mentorship, and to review the selection of the mentor(s).

Support:

1. Stronger version of 2, restricting Abd to his userspace until mentorship takes effect, and ensuring ArbCom select and appoint the mentor(s). This is effectively combining points 3 and 4 from FloNight's 6-part remedy below, but placing it here as an alternative to remedy 2, which is the logical place to put it. Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I don't think Abd is really a person that could be mentored well through this, so can't support. Wizardman 18:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Won't work here. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
3. I just can't see it working. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
4. I remain unconvinced that Abd is receptive to mentoring (voluntary or otherwise). — Coren ^(talk) 03:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Absolutely not. Involuntary mentorship is useless. Unless an editor is willing to work with a mentor, it is a waste of time. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Prefer alternatives at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Not entirely certain that Abd is interested in, or willing to participate in a mentorship process; however, if one of the mentorship proposals passes, this would be preferable. Risker (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restrictions

3)

1. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for his edit-warring and tendentious editing.
2. Abd is banned from the cold fusion article, any content related to cold fusion, and any talk page discussion related to cold fusion for one year.
3. Abd is placed under mentorship for one year with mentors selected by ArbCom.
4. Abd is banned from Wikipedia for 4 weeks. During the ban, the mentors will be selected and editing guidelines will be developed by the mentors and Abd. The Arbitration Committee reserves the option to shorten or lengthen the time of the ban depending on completion of the mentoring agreement.
5. Abd is limited to one revert per page per week for all contributions across Wikipedia (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
6. Further more, Abd is limited to one post per day to any talk page in all namespace except for posts that are approved by his mentor(s). Should Abd exceed his 1RR limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, disregard his talk page editing limit, or disregard his Cold fusion page ban, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Support:

FloNight♥♥♥ 16:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   I'm unsure about the value of mentorship in this case, but the remainder of the remedy is necessary. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   Struck in favor of the alternatives given my dislike of mentorship in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

2. These should work better. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. From FloNight's proposals on the workshop. Per my comments on the preceding proposal, I don't see this as being adequately supported by the evidence. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Support points 2-3 point 3 (point 2 needs separate consideration). Point 1 is not a restriction. Point 4 can be dealt with by requesting a voluntary self-ban from anything except his own userspace. IMO, points 5 and 6 should be left flexible depending on the "editing guidelines" to be developed. Carcharoth (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Updated: 00:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Favor a combination of alternatives. — Coren ^(talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Mentors are not gatekeepers. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I don't see mentorship as being very amicable in this situation, but I support most of the other parts. I'll think this over. Wizardman 02:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Still considering; will vote within the next day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Addressed through more specific alternatives below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Prefer the more specific alternatives. Risker (talk) 02:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

• Additional variations on sanctions for Abd are currently being workshopped; I will await comment on those before voting, and do not wish to alter the majority for this question by abstaining. Risker (talk) 04:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Point 1 is not a restriction. Seriously. If you want things like this to read properly, separate out the admonishment from the restrictions, or re-title it. Carcharoth (talk) 05:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restriction (prolixity)

3.1) Abd is limited to posting a maximum of 500 words per day to any discussion of a particular article or topic (including but not limited to article talk and project and project talk pages) except for posts that are approved by his mentor(s).

Support:

1. forgot to vote, so done so now. Casliber (talk • contribs) 04:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Though exact details of editing guidelines should be left flexible, I can support this. I would not object to Abd posting lots of thoughts in his userspace, but I would be opposed to him and others linking to lengthy posts in his userspace. Carcharoth (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Though the prolixity is an enormous problem, I'm not sure that a rigid word limit is the answer. Frankly, though, I'm not sure just what is. Will continue to think.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
2. A stick too blunt to be useful; also misconstrues the role of a mentor. --bainer (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
3. A hard limit is unlikely to be helpful. — Coren ^(talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Mentors are not gatekeepers. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not entirely persuaded that a strictly enforced word limit is the right answer, but haven't come up with a better idea yet. Risker (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

• Taken from Thatcher's proposals on the workshop page. I believe topic is more feasible than page as the topic could be being discussed in more than one area. This will bolster mentorship, and is a remedy aimed at a key problem identified. Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restriction (existing disputes)

3.2) Abd is prohibited from participating in discussion of any dispute in which he is not one of the originating parties, unless approved by his mentor(s). This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution. He would be allowed to vote or comment at polls.

Support:

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Carcharoth (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 18:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Reasonable, although I would prefer to include a time period. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

   Noting that, in the absence of a mentor or other gatekeeper, this is an absolute prohibition. Risker (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

6. This is probably useful, likely to help, and definitely enforceable. — Coren ^(talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Mentors provide advice and should not be put in the role of gatekeepers. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment:

• Taken from Thatcher's proposals on the workshop page. This will bolster mentorship. Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd banned from cold fusion article

3.3) Abd is banned from the cold fusion article, any content related to cold fusion, and any talk page discussion related to cold fusion for one year.

Support:

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 18:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
3. But in light of Carcharoth's comment, I would accept a modification authorizing limited participation in the mediation if requested or approved by the mediator. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Newyorkbrad. Abd's participation on the article and, particularly, the talk page was excessive and inappropriate over an extended period. Should the mediator agree to Abd's participation in that forum, any other applicable remedies (including word limits) should apply to that situation. Mediation is the only exception that I would make to this remedy. Risker (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Coren ^(talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Helpful in removing Abd from the disputed area and giving other editors some breathing space to develop consensus. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Oppose for two reasons - (1) Enric Naval has requested Abd be allowed to take part in the Cold fusion mediation; (2) because I think that if the other restrictions are put in place, then the fear that Abd will overwhelm the discussions will have been addressed, and thus the need to ban him from the article and talk page is no longer there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Partially struck due to this, though I have concerns, both about Enric Naval's initial offer and then its retraction. More on talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Insufficiently supported by evidence. --bainer (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment:

Split out from above four-part remedy for clarity. Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd editing restriction (1RR/week)

3.4) Abd is limited to one revert per page per week for all contributions across Wikipedia (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.

Support:

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Not needed in my view. Edit warring is not the problem here. It is excessive talk page posting and overwhelming of discussions that is the problem. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Not really needed if the others are passed. Wizardman 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Aside from the edit warring on these case pages, there has been no evidence presented to support this. --bainer (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Carcharoth and Stephen Bain. Risker (talk) 01:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
5. I haven't seen edit warring of significance; the problem is unhelpful participation in discussion in a way that makes consensus difficult or impossible to reach. — Coren ^(talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. This hasn't been an issue for Abd that I have noticed to this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Newyorkbrad. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

Split out from above four-part remedy for clarity. Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd banned for four weeks

3.5) Abd is banned from Wikipedia for four weeks. During the ban, the mentors (if remedy 2 passed) will be selected and editing guidelines will be developed by the mentors and Abd. The Arbitration Committee reserves the option to shorten or lengthen the time of the ban depending on completion of the mentoring agreement.

Support:

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Prefer remedy 2.1 above where Abd is restricted to his userspace to develop a mentorship plan. No need to actually place a formal block or site ban, which would only have the effect of forcing discussion of the mentorship into off-wiki channels. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Consistent with my declining mentorship in this case. — Coren ^(talk) 03:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Coren. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. The way it's worded makes this iffy for me. Wizardman 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Can't support given that neither of the remedies proposing mentorship are passing. Risker (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Per Risker, and the fact that the longer ban is passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

Split out from above four-part remedy for clarity. Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd banned for 3 months

3.6) Abd is banned from Wikipedia for 3 months. Should remedies requiring him to identify a mentor (or develop a mentorship plan) pass, the mentorship will become effective at the end of the ban.

Support:

1. Enough of the pussyfooting. Abd has been disruptive for an extended period of time over several disputes, and needs to take a break. Even now, as we are working through this case, his planned changes in behaviour[33] still includes methods by which he will continue his voluminous discussion, then "hide" it. No, this is not what I was looking to see. Risker (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I feel that the diff offered by Risker is worrisome enough for me to agree, because it shows that Adb either fails or refuses to understand the necessity of collaborating towards consensus rather than battle his way through opposition. — Coren ^(talk) 23:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Wizardman 01:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
7. The disruption has been a long-term ongoing problem. A break from the project seems appropriate and perhaps necessary. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, but candidly, I'm quite miserable about this whole affair. Abd has a great deal of valuable article content to contribute (on topics such as parliamentary procedure and voting methods, among others), and I'm bewildered by why Abd has chosen to use his talents in less productive ways despite the good-faith advice he's received from a number of people. I've carefully scoured much of what Abd has written both on-wiki and on Wikipedia Review in the past several days, and unfortunately, see only the likelihood of more of the same, or potentially even escalation. This is just one of a few similar situations coming to a head this week, and about all of them I am sad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While not completely satisfied with Abd's response, I don't think that a site ban proposal is the right reaction. I think the other remedies currently passing are adequate to deal with the problems with Abd's conduct, and those remedies will continue to be suitable once a site ban expires, but only if the right groundwork is done. Part of this groundwork includes Abd finding a suitable mentor - a process which can happen outside of arbitration, though a mentored Abd would still be subject to the arbitration remedies passed in this case. My preference would have been for a restriction to userspace while such groundwork was laid, but if any potential mentoring groundwork is laid off-wiki while Abd is banned, that will be adequate, if sub-optimal. Carcharoth (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment:

Abd admonished

4) Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages. Abd is further admonished for engaging in personal attacks during this case, and for failing even to attempt to substantiate allegations of misconduct levelled at other editors.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. regardless of what other remedies pass, yes. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Although I don't think it's necessary or helpful to single out Mathsci here by name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Based on the comments and lack of disagreement, I've copyedited by deleting "with Mathsci" -- any arbitrator who disagrees, please feel free to revert (my support will stand). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

6. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Agree with the admonishment, though I would not be inclined to single out the attention to Mathsci, as the similar behaviour toward other editors was as egregious. Risker (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
10. Switching to support (from oppose) because I do think Abd should be admonished here, even if I disagree with the wording. As I said for another switch I made above, I should have suggested an alternative wording earlier, but will not now do so at this late stage. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Switching to support. Explanation above. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Technical oppose because I disagree with the finding that Abd edit-warred on arbitration pages. Edit warring on articles, yes this should be admonished (though I opposed the blanket nature of the relevant finding). The personal attacks finding relates to off-site material, and is not passing. That only leaves the cabal allegations, and I don't think that rises to the level of an admonishment. I do think Abd should be admonished (for his style of writing and not changing it), but the admonishment wording should more clearly reflect the findings that pass, rather than be based on wording written before voting began on the findings. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Mathsci admonished

5) Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages. Mathsci is further admonished for engaging in personal attacks with Abd during this case.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Getting into it on arbitration pages certainly warrants an arbitration finding. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Given the events and context, I'd support a "reminded" motion but feel this is too strong. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I'll support a trouting, but that's all that's needed. Wizardman 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. A reminder would suffice. (Proposed below). — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Appears to have been an isolated incident. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. This was an isolated incident that is atypical of editor, undertaken out of understandable frustration and shock. Importantly, Mathsci has acknowledged the problematic nature of the conduct without tu quoque defenses and has apologized without making excuses.[34][35][36] Wizardman notes the need for a trouting, which Mathsci seems to have delivered himself. Given the acknowledgment and apology, I feel that an admonishment would be redundant and punitive. Vassyana (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Mathsci reminded

5.1) Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war — especially not on arbitration pages — and to avoid personal attacks at all times.

Support:

1. This is more proportionate. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   Casliber (talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Wizardman 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. --bainer (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice. No need to pussyfoot. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I'm not convinced this is necessary, though I agree it's better than 5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Still not needed. Only if it repeats would this be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Noting here that though I now support the finding involving Mathsci edit warring, I think that is sufficient, and a reminder is not needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
3. On thinking about it, if this were an ideal world and a reminder carried no weight, I guess this would be a straightforward answer, but I can't support if I didn't find the finding that this is based on above. Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Upon review and reconsideration, I am switching to oppose. I still find any edit-warring over an arbitration page to be highly inadvisable, but there are a couple of factors leading me to believe a remedy is unnecessary here. This was an isolated incident that is atypical of editor, undertaken out of understandable frustration and shock. Importantly, Mathsci has acknowledged the problematic nature of the conduct without tu quoque defenses and has apologized without making excuses.[37][38][39] Given this acknowledgment and apology, I feel that a reminder would be redundant and punitive. Vassyana (talk) 07:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Not sure this is needed, but it is an improvement over 5. Risker (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley desysopped

6) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) administrative privileges are revoked. William M. Connolley may apply to have them reinstated at any time, either through the usual means (i.e., via request for adminship) or by appeal to the Committee.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. I do not think this is overkill as some of my colleagues state. WMC edited through a protected page with the stated intent (in the summary) of stirring things up. This is not appropriate for anyone, much less an admin. He also blocked the other party in this arbitration case; which is the epitome of an involved block; also very inappropriate for an admin. Then there're the other issues brought up in FoF 14. These actions are very unbecoming of and inappropriate for an admin and hence more than justify a desysop. This is not how any wiki user should act, much less an admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Second choice (moved from abstention). Risker (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Only choice. First choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
6. Second choice (switching from oppose). Carcharoth (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
7. First choice. I could hardly disagree with Coren and Newyorkbrad more. This is no way too harsh or overkill. We are talking about an administrator that used the tools against another party in the middle of an arbitration case. That statement stands on its own as a rationale. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Overkill. WMC has shown poor judgment in some cases, but the basis for his acts is sound in general. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Much too harsh. See also my comments on the findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Mainly due to the good judgment displayed in other areas, but will be supporting a temporary desysop for the lack of judgment shown in events surrounding and including this case. Carcharoth (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC) After re-considering this, switching to second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

3. Ultimately, after much thought. I think not needed. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

I do think WMC needs time away from the tools; while he has done very good work in some areas, there have also been instances where his judgment has been significantly deficient. Not sure a full desysop is the answer, though. Risker (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Moved to support as second choice. Risker (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

*I will return to this one after further review; however, I do not wish to abstain and alter the majority for this question. Risker (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Voted. Risker (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley temp desysop and admin tool topic ban

6.1) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is admonished for his edit warring and misuse of administrative tools. William M. Connolley is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored. Additionally, William M. Connolley is warned to not use his administrative tools when he is involved.

Upon regaining his administrator access, William M. Connolley will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Cold fusion or in relation to Abd. Should William M. Connolley violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or alter the restriction.

Support:

Support, WMC works in many heated areas of WP where many admin will not work. He needs recognition for being willing to wade into these situations and give good support to the editors that are adding good content. We need to understand that it is much easier for an admin to make what appears to be a large error in judgment when they work in these highly inflammatory situations because everything is magnified. An involuntary break from working in these controversial areas, with a return with some time limited restriction on their return has been used by the committee in the past, and I think is the best choice here. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking another party to an arbitration case is a large error in judgment. Blocking a user you are edit warring with so as to 'win' the content dispute is a large error in judgment. --bainer (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The main consideration is whether WMC will do it again. An important consideration for me was that the blocks were sound with other people supporting them as being needed. So, he has the ability to understand when a block is needed. The issues is that he needs to refer them to someone else to handle. I think that a break from the day-today work in these high intensity areas will help give him the insight needed to walk away from these situations in the future. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. This is a minimum. I'll support this in the case of a desysop above not passing, which I am considering currently. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Cas. Second choice to the above remedy. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Pattern of lack of judgment in several areas. Unlike Stephen I think that a temporary desysop will give WMC a break (as FloNight says), and he can take up the tools again later and demonstrate that he can then deal with such incidents better. Unlike those who oppose this on principle, I don't think we should make adminship such a big deal that it can't be temporarily removed and then restored, if needed. Insisting it is all-or-nothing sets too high a standard, when it is clear there is a range of compentency and skills and judgment among Wikipedia's admins. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Carcharoth, particularly his last two sentences. Risker (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Note for clerks: First choice.
5. Regretfully. I remain opposed, in principle, to temporary desysops but I'm switching to support (as second choice) given the context: WMC's poor judgment requires stronger corrective measures than an admonishment alone, but I still believe that an outright desysop is unwarranted. I remain more favorable to some sort of probation, but it would be perverse that no remedy pass simply because the arbitrators are split on which remedy should pass while agreeing that one must. — Coren ^(talk) 11:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

   Second choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. From FloNight's proposals on the workshop. I'm opposed to temporary desysoppings generally: an administrator is either trusted sufficiently to do their work or they are not, in which case they should not have the tools. I'm also opposed to a temporary desysop in this particular case: Mr Connolley's actions during this case have demonstrated quite comprehensively that he cannot be trusted to use his tools responsibly. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Against temp desysops. Wizardman 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   I oppose temporary desysops as a matter of principle; alternative below. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (moved to support, see above). — Coren ^(talk) 11:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

3. Not necessary, despite my concerns about unnecessarily drama-inducing actions such as the block during the case. See also my comments on the findings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   For purposes of preference counting, although I've opposed both 6 and 6.1, if required to choose between the two I would support 6.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

4. Per bainer. I am opposed to temporary desyoppings. I also strongly feel that a lesser measure is not warranted here. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comment:

*I will return to this one after further review; however, I do not wish to abstain and alter the majority for this question. Risker (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Voted. Risker (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley on probation

6.2) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is placed on administrative probation for one year as a consequence of his edit warring and misuse of administrative tools.

William M. Connolley will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Cold fusion, in areas where he is involved, or in relation to Abd. Should William M. Connolley violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access summarily.

Support:

1. Proposed. WMC has shown poor judgment in acting administratively in areas he is involved in, and restricting his use of the tools is appropriate, but temporary desysops serve no useful purpose. Given that I do not believe that his infractions quite raise to the level warranting a desysop, I think this is a suitable alternative. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Yes. Casliber (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Second choice. Wizardman 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Third choice to the above two remedies. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Third choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I have no idea what "administrative probation" means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   It's meant as a parallel of editing probation extended to administrative actions: WMC is placed under increased scrutiny and notified that misuse of the tools can lead to increased sanctions. In addition, a number of specific restrictions are spelled out.

   I welcome suggestions to rework the wording to make that clear. — Coren ^(talk) 15:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

2. I do not see how this can be carried out, without full mentorship and someone reviewing all of WMC's many administrator actions. Risker (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
3. In practice, this would be too difficult to monitor. While I don't think adminship should be a big deal, I do think that those holding the tools should be able to use them without monitoring , mentoring, or being on probation. This is why I favour temporary or full desysops to this (relatively new) concept of "administrative probation", with temporary desysops being used where an administrator still (in my view) holds the overall trust of the committee and the community, but has shown lack of judgment to the level that a clear sanction is needed, rather than a slap on the wrist. Carcharoth (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
4. The system of administrators depends on individual administrators being trusted to use the tools on their own, without supervision. If a user cannot be so trusted, then they should no longer be an administrator. --bainer (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Per bainer. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

William M. Connolley admonished

7) William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   FloNight♥♥♥ 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
4. In this case, an admonition is warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Noting this does not go far enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
6. This is a minimal sanction; per Newyorkbrad, it could be expanded to cover many other points aside from the edit warring. Risker (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
7. For the conduct during the case, an admonishment is needed at a minimum. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
9. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I would support a broader admonition addressing the various issues in the case. The behavior on the arbitration pages themselves is a relatively minor aspect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Blocking the other party in your arb case is hardly minor. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   The block did not occur "on [an] arbitration page," and therefore is not part of what I was referring to. I have opined above that this block was seriously problematic, though I also believe the circumstances are unlikely to recur. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged

8) The Arbitration Committee urges that the community engage in a policy discussion and clarify, on an appropriate policy page, whether and under what circumstances an administrator may direct that a given editor is banned from editing a particular page or on a particular topic (outside the context of arbitration enforcement), without first attaining a consensus for the ban on a noticeboard, and if so, how such bans are to be reviewed. Such discussion should seek to attain consensus on a policy in this area within one month from the close of this case.

Support:

1. Casliber (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Wizardman 01:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Per my comments on principles 3 and 4 above and on the workshop. To Coren, in addition to documenting the existing practice as formal policy (to prevent disputes such as the one created by Abd from recurring), the proposal addresses other issues as to which I believe current practice is unclear, such as where and how topic bans or page bans are subject to appeal or review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
6. As I stated above, some issues surrounding this are unclear. More individual responsibility from admins is needed, and better standards for community reviews. Although our views are clear, it needs to be the community that documents current practice and discusses what best practice should be. Carcharoth (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Only on the basis of the closing clause. We should not appoint an arbitrary deadline for community discussion. Also, per Coren. Vassyana (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

   "Seek to attain consensus" is not a deadline, but a goal. Endless discussion that never results in a stable policy is not what we need here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. I have no fundamental opposition to such an urging, but I also fail to see what exactly needs to clarified. As far as I can tell, the imposition of a page ban outside the context of arbitration enforcement may have been novel but was both clear in application and well received by the community as a measured application of administrative discretion. — Coren ^(talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

   Well, even rubber-stamping or confirming that it was/is a good idea would be helpful and provide some clarity for admins in protracted disputes I think. Casliber (talk • contribs) 05:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Template

9) {Proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. If proposed remedy #2 passes, this will be needed. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

   Noting that the numbering somehow got messed around; the original remedy 2 bainer refers to is now, I believe, remedy 3 and its alternates. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

2. Subject to one or more relevant remedies passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
4. Subject to relevant remedy(s) passing. Risker (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
5. Sufficient. Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
6. Will do. — Coren ^(talk) 18:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
7. Second choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Administrators should not be fettered by arbitrary time limits, but rather be free to use their discretion on a case by case basis. Vassyana (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Other remedies could use it; time period too short though. Wizardman 01:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Too short. alternative offered below. Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by lengthy block

1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 2 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to three months. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. Given the experience of the editors and involvement in previous cases, this needs to have some teeth. Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 01:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
4. First choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 04:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Three months is too long. A month is enough. Application to extend this as needed can be made. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Carcharoth and per Bainer (below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
3. Per the rationales of my colleagues. Risker (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Note that the purpose of having the fixed maximum durations is to give certainty and security to administrators enforcing arbitration remedies, and shorter durations fulfil that role better, as less depends on the discretion of the administrator. If indeed it gets to the point where someone is being repeatedly blocked under a remedy, it's probably the case that the Committee will need to consider stricter remedies anyway. --bainer (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
2. Less restrictive on enforcing administrators, therefore less objectionable but not ideal. Vassyana (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Template

2) Proposed enforcement

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

This was originally a fairly simple case, revolving around a few policy questions. It has been made needlessly complicated by the egregious behaviour of parties during the case, which has included edit warring, making unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, 'stepping outside' to attack one another off-site, and even including one party blocking another. It is not good enough for parties to blame the clerks for this: the parties are responsible for their own actions, and indeed in the key examples (the ones that are the subject of findings of fact) parties acted without recourse to the clerks despite copious instructions on the various arbitration pages advising them to do so. --bainer (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Last updated 22:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC) - last edit to this page was on 22:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposals which pass

Passing principles: 1, 2, 4.1, 5, 6, 7

Passing findings: 1.1, 2, 3.1, 4.1, 5^C, 6^D, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Passing remedies: 1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.6, 4, 5.1^D, 6, 7, 8

Passing enforcement provisions: 1^B(R3)

Proposals which do not pass

Non-passing principles: 3, 4

Non-passing findings: 1, 3^A, 3.2, 4, 5.1^A, 9

Non-passing remedies: 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5, 6.1^A, 6.2^A

Non-passing enforcement provisions: 1.1^B(R3)

Notes

A.^ ^ ^ ^ Indicates a proposal that would be passing, except an alternate version has greater support. In cases of a numerial tie, "first/second choice" conditional votes are used to determine passage.

B.^ ^ Passage is dependent on the passage of other provisions, indicated by type initial (P = Principles, F = Findings, R = Remedies, E = Enforcement) and number, in addition to having a majority.

C.^ In cases of unclear dominance between two alternate proposals, the Arbitration Committee is asked privately which alternate they would prefer to have pass. This marker is used to show where such a decision was made, in the event of questions.

D.^ ^ Indicates a proposal passing only due to abstentions.

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Should be done here now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Everything looks good to go. Wizardman 05:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Risker (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
5. Close. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Very temporary oppose. Since a couple of arbitrators (particularly Vassyana) have recently added some very substantive comments, we should allow a day or two for other arbitrators to review those comments and see if they change anyone's views. We should be ready to close soon after that, probably Thursday or Friday. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Very short term. There is a wording issue that may need addressing. I am reconsidering a set of remedy votes based on information that I previously missed. Clerks and other arbs, please consider this vote expired after 24 hours (and thus free to outdent/strike it at that time, if I have not). Vassyana (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Striking per instructions. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Unless there is any further opposition to closing the case, I will begin closing at 22:25 on September 13th. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)