Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hersfold

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Abd (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 19 August 2009 (→I'm very sorry to bother you: clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:30, 19 August 2009 by Abd (talk | contribs) (→I'm very sorry to bother you: clarify)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

ATTENTION: One or more IPBE flags are up for review at this time. Please confirm that all flags listed on this page are still necessary. Thank you! ATTENTION: One or more IPBE flags are up for review at this time. Please confirm that all flags listed on this page are still necessary. Thank you!

Welcome to my Talk Page!

Thank you for coming by, however please note that I have largely retired from Misplaced Pages. Messages left here will not receive a prompt response, if ever. Please also note that I no longer hold any access rights; if you are contacting me in relation to a block, deletion, or any other administrative action I have taken, I am unable to assist you. Please contact another administrator for help.

If you do have an urgent need to contact me specifically, such as for one of my bots, please send me an email via Special:Emailuser/Hersfold.

Archiving icon
Archives
This page will be archived every month. If you can't find what you're looking for, check the most recent archive.

User:Hersfold/Talk Header - v • e


User Nangparbat?

Hi Hersfold, could you look into this to see if it's Nangparbat since you seem to have dealt with this? The IP's you have listed on your page are similar, the target articles seem similar (subject wise) and Geolocate to the UK (something that seems to have been a pattern).

  • 86.162.67.210
  • 86.156.212.62
  • 86.163.153.145
  • 86.158.232.173
  • 86.156.215.203
  • 86.156.211.9
  • 86.162.67.210

Thanks. Elockid (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it, yes. The MO and IPs both seem familiar. I can semi protect the articles if needed, but blocking this user is akin to playing whack-a-mole; as you can see in your list there, they're able to jump IP ranges easily, so even large rangeblocks don't have much effect. Hersfold 21:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup. I noticed that their IP changes frequently when they started editing the second article, War on Terrorism. I'll try to keep an eye out. Elockid (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify your meaning

Here. I have no problem with you exercising control to avoid having things spin out of control. Indeed, I would consider striking that entire comment as being an off-topic digression or something similar as long as it is clear that you are likewise asking Mathsci to rein in his behavior. If not then I feel obligated to stand by my comment as being a direct response to Mathsci's statements. This is why I want to know who you are directing your comment towards. --GoRight (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of you. You'd both made attacking/provocative comments in that particular discussion, and my comment was intended to tell both of you to remain civil. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this, but I've been out of the country for most of the past week and a half. Hersfold 20:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 3 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

TD again

There was no explicit resolution of the TD case. Can you please press the arbs to break their monastic silence. Meantime, the otherwise inactive account is showing up in an odd place William M. Connolley (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Emailed you about this previously. Hersfold 20:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Adoptee

Hey I was looking at the adoptee thingee. Wondering if I could be yours......Mhera (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm already involved in mentoring another user, and I'm not open to new adoptees at this time. If you're having trouble finding one, though, let me know and I'll try to help you out. Hersfold 20:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Could you look at User_talk:MBisanz#Edit_throttle? Thanks. MBisanz 04:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Planning Discussions Now Ongoing Regarding DC Meetup #8

DC 8 (talk)

--NBahn (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look when I get the chance. Hersfold 20:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Permanent links or is collapse box good enough?

On the Abd-William M Connolley case evidence page I have a rather large table. I was first thinking that I was going to delete it from my section and just provide a link to it, but then it occurred to me that a simple collapse box might be more usable. Please take a look at what I have done with the collapse box and let me know if this is acceptable to keep my section content within guidelines, or if you need to to switch to the permanent links instead. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be better to just move the table to a subpage and link to it there - I don't think that a collapsed table is necessarily out-of-bounds, but anything on the /Evidence page still counts toward your diff/word limit, which is probably pretty close if not over (I haven't checked lately). Hope this helps. Hersfold 20:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User Ratel warring? vandalizing? bad faith?

User Ratel is trying to archive an active discussion in Aktion T4. This User Ratel is clearly involved in the discussion. 190.25.101.144 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it's been handled. In future, you should contact someone who isn't marked as being on vacation, or leave a note at WP:ANI. Hersfold 20:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 10 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Length of workshop page

Welcome back. As far as I know, Crohnie is still having browser difficulties due to the length of the workshop page; see message from Crohnie here and previous discussion at "Away". Previously the problem seemed to be fixed after MBisanz and I shortened it from 683,475 bytes to 548,442 bytes, but it's now about 960,000 bytes. I'm thinking of moving my own proposals (and all related discussion) to a subpage; let me know if there's any reason I shouldn't do that. I suggest moving all proposals to subpages, e.g. the first subpage might be "Proposals by Abd, Raul654 and William M. Connolley". I suggested a few discussions that could be moved to the talk page at User talk:MBisanz#Clerk help needed, but they wouldn't make much difference. I've also suggested that Crohnie can post comments elsewhere which I or someone else can move onto the workshop page but shortening the page somehow would be preferable. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We tried having proposals on subpages in the Ryulong case a few months ago, and it was widely disliked as it hindered navigation, made it difficult to compare proposals, and broke up discussion, among other complaints. If you don't mind moving in Crohnie's comments, that would be fine; just make sure to say something like "comment from Crohnie <original diff>" in your edit summary each time. The only other thing I can recommend is that Crohnie try to work on improving his browser, memory capacity, and/or bandwidth; there isn't much I can do. Hersfold non-admin 14:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Hersfold: Yesterday, 11 August, I wrote to Administrator Toddst1 (talk), who had left a msg on my talk page, giving him/her my explanation of the Question/Answer affair begun when, last April, I answered - on Robespierre discussion page - a student, Laura, who had asked a question. The facts are:

(1) I did not give Laura the answer to her question, but directed her to the section of the article she should read;
(2) in jest, I gave her a paragraph in French taken from fr:wiki, which I am pretty sure she was not be capable of reading.

In consideration of this, I believe that my answer to student Laura was not giving her information on the subject, and promoting laziness; on the contrary, I was directing her to the article, telling her: Laura, you could read the article... at least the section *Early politics* & find your answer, to which I added (the jest part): As a gift, here is the exact answer found in French wikipedia. Hope you can read French!, which obviously she could not. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, the equivalent of this French paragraph is nowhere in en:wiki article on Robespierre.

My point is, I do not feel that I was violating Misplaced Pages:Forum#FORUM.

Best regards, Frania W. (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What? Where did I say you were violating anything? Hersfold 23:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hersfold, You did not say anything. I wrote you because I noticed that you are among the administrators handling this case & I wanted to point out to you the innocent original discussion with student Laura in which I see no violation of any of Misplaced Pages rules & regulations on my part. Just clarifying things. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Misplaced Pages Review

Per your note here, I was under the impression that behavior on WR was being scrutinized, per this proposal by Stephen Bain. Their thread on WR is a secret open to pretty much all editors participating in the arbitration. I may repost a redacted version of my comment without the link, unless you indicate not to. Skinwalker (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can propose such a finding, but you'll notice two other Arbitrators have commented against the proposal you point out. As Abd himself said, WR is held to a considerably different standard. Unless real-life harassment is taking place, or the problems on WR are severe enough to have spilled over onto Misplaced Pages, historically non-Foundation sites have been outside the remit of ArbCom and administrators. If you feel as though the conduct there is coloring your perception of the case, you are free to comment as such as objectively as possible, but please don't link to the site. Hersfold 23:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hersfold. I just read your comment above. I placed a link to the thread in question on WR in my updated evidence. Would you like it to be removed? The whole section can be removed if you think fit. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
(Double-checked with an arb just to make sure). Again, unless you feel it's really relevant to the issues the case is mainly about, it probably doesn't belong in the case. I don't see that this is the case, so it's probably best to remove it. Hersfold 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for this speedy reply and for double-checking. It has no relevance to this case at all, so I'll remove it. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ikip's evidence about A.K.Nole

Hi again.

I noticed that Ikip has added a series of comments from an ANI thread on A.K.Nole's block by WMC in his evidence. This seems to be irrelevant material lying outside this case and which Ikip has distorted.

Details of A.K.Nole ANI report which you are encouraged not to read

It was already determined on AP;ANI that, having engaged in the successful AfD for Jeremy Dunning-Davies initiated by me, A.K.Nole quizzed my username, edited the article Mathsci not quite accurately, and then for about a week planted himself on the talk page of Butcher group, a long article that I was in the process of creating. His prolonged comments, which had almost nothing to do with the main article, were described as faux naif, unhelpful and irrelevant by several senior mathematics administrators including User:Charles Matthews; his attempt to copy-paste some of the article into a physics stub minimal renomalization scheme was described as a bad edit by User:YellowMonkey in an independent review. A suggestion to disengage from another editor of the article, identified by User:David Eppstein as a Fields medallist, was ignored. The charge of wikihounding was upheld on ANI by several administrators, including User:Shell Kinney. Many other people commented on ANI with no apparent awareness that I single-handedly creating the first draft of the article, which on completion I stopped watching.

These details are also completely irrelevant to the case, but since Ikip has cherry-picked comments and ignored the careful reviews by ex-arbs in his evidence, something seems very badly wrong. As I already mentioned on the evidence talk page, this part of Ikip's evidence should probably be modified or possibly even removed because as written, it is irrelevant, inaccurate and possibly inflammatory. This continues to be one of tne most bizarre ArbCom cases I've contributed to (the others were Dbachmann, PHG, Fringe science and Abd&JzG). Preparing a youtube video (my first!) for an external link to WP is far more restful and constructive. Thanks in advance. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several findings/principles/remedies/etc. that have been proposed that deal with possible admin abuse by WMC. From what I can tell, Ikip's evidence is at least relevant to that particular topic, and he's certainly asserting as such. Evidence, by its very nature, is very likely to be slanted to the provider's point of view. There's not much I can do about that. If you feel it's distorting the truth, you might want to offer an analysis in the workshop to that effect, or include some additional evidence with comments from the other side of that discussion. Hersfold non-admin 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added this as evidence now with quotes in the collapse box. (These could be accompanied by diffs, although that would take a lot more time.) Mathsci (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Help

You said you know of an adopter. Who is it? --Mhera (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:Steve Crossin. His userpage says he's looking for adoptees, and his lessons are based largely on my own. Hersfold 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you back?

Are you fully back now? I've been watching over the ArbCom case you were clerking. hmwitht 04:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've been back since Tuesday. Thanks for keeping an eye on things. :-) Hersfold 04:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock!

Hi Hersfod. I was looking at new user's contribs. I found this person named Orion3hor and he had vandalised a page. I suspect now he has a sock even after 1 edit because the sock did the exact same thing Orion3hor did and he has the username OrionAryan. What should we do? Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Make a report at WP:SPI for further review. I'll take a look at it now anyway. Hersfold 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. :-) Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't bother with the report, I've just blocked both indefinitely. Hersfold 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I was just about to post if you mean't to file an investigation. Rascal the Peaceful (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

May I be the first of many to congratulate you on your new checkuser status. May I also be the first to present you with the follow userbox:

This user has checkuser rights on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

Again, congrats! Now I know you to bug when I need a checkuser :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations on being appointed as a checkuser. I remember how scary those first few checks can be, so I wanted to assure you that it does get easier, and that I'll try to keep myself available on IRC at #wikipedia-en-admins and #wikipedia-en-checkuser so I can help you out with those crucial first few checks. Don't be afraid to ask me any and all questions you might have. Have fun! --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all! I probably won't get the buttons until the WMF office opens again on Monday, but Deskana, I'll be sure to let you know if I need anything. :-) Hersfold 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratz. on this. Gosh, I remember the days when you were just a lowly editors. Those were the days. :D KTC (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just want to bring this to attention..

Hi Hersfold, I thought maybe others may be having the same problems, maybe not. I have a real problem downloading the workshop page of the Abd/Connelley case due I to the massive length now. I don't know if there is anyway to scale it down but I thought I would ask since I have been name by Abd in the supposed cabal. I haven't really been online due to injury in RL but I would really like to catch up on things but can't. What happens is my browser freezes. I did mention having this problem on the talk page and Vsmith came to my talk page about it. But I am coming to you because it is the case you are assigned to. I do not have dial up and I have done what I can from home to clear out my browser, rebooting and so forth which had helped. I did get back on there but for the most part I can't respond at all now. I've never had this problem before since I have been an editor here. I know this case has become different than most, at least that's what I've read. Anyway, is there anything that can be done? If not, don't worry, I just don't want anyone to think I am ignoring them if they have made a comment to me or if there is something I should really respond to. I can so far see the other pages of the case. Basically I want to bring this problem to your attentions so that you can bring it to others attentions if needed. I really doubt there is much you can do at this point in time about this but I'd appreciate it if you notice any place that I should respond to or something if you would leave a polite note that I cannot download the page or something. I feel silly bringing this to you at all but I feel it might be important because others may also have this same problem and have not said so. Anyways, thanks for your time on this. --CrohnieGal 11:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC) {{User:Rascal the Peaceful/UBX/Talk Page Stalker}} RtP (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rascal, while I appreciate your desire to help, there are some topics I'd rather handle myself; things dealing with the Arbitration Committee are among them. Thank you.
Crohnie, I know you're having trouble with this; I will try talking to the other Arbitrators to see if there is anything that can be done to the workshop, but so far you're the only one unable to access the page, and we don't want to hinder accessibility for them either. I will try to keep an eye out for things dealing with you specifically, as hopefully some others will do as well. I'll let you know what we come up with, if anything. Hersfold 17:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Hersfold, I totally understand. I find it strange that I'm the only one having this problem so I will see if there is something needed to be done on my end too. My husband may have changed something as he tends to my computer for me. I thought it was a good idea to bring this to your attentions because I thought you were away and may have missed my comments earlier. It's not a big deal me not being able to access it. Thanks again for your time with this. Good luck with the rest of this case, I know it's got to be a hard case to clerk. --CrohnieGal 17:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. One other thing you might try is switching browsers, if you haven't already; I know back when Grawp was doing his thing, IE would totally crash on some of the pages he'd attacked, but Firefox would manage to slog through it after five minutes. Hersfold 18:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Abd-WMC arbitration - Request for injunction re:Raul654

I have filed a motion requesting an injunction to keep the Arbitration on target. The sudden last-minute appearance and proliferation of new proposals surrounding the very-tangentially related conduct of Raul654 is generating a large amount of extra, unnecessary, confusing, and disruptive discussion. A formal statement from ArbCom is requested to confirm that these proposals are far beyond the scope of this Arbitration.

Proposed: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley/Workshop#Raul654 is not a party to this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I just saw it, and I'm emailing the arbs about it now. Hersfold 18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. (Before I saw your reply here, I also sent an email to FloNight, as she had commented recently on this topic on the talk page.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

HersfoldOTRSBot

The bot says "it's permission status", but it should be "its permission status". Panda Says No. Stifle (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow. Usually I'm careful about that. Thanks, I'll fix it. Hersfold 19:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


Re Aedas files detected by your bot

I have seen the messages left on my talk page regarding a number of Aedas files. Aedas were happy with the licensing as it stood prior to the creation of the commons, however, they are now not happy and would like the images removed. So please go ahead and delete all of the pages marked by the bot, the sooner the better as far as I am concerned. I would have requested a deletion my self but am unsure of the procedure. An email was sent with an alternative form of wording bus as I expected it was returned with a request that they use the workding prescribed by wikimedia commons. This is still being debated at Aedas but I feel the best thing is to remove the pages and I will start again when they can provide me with some images that we can use or I am able to go and take some photographs.

Deevincentday (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't delete the images myself, as I'm not an admin on Commons, but they should be deleted fairly soon. If it is really urgent, you can contact an administrator there (list) and refer them to the messages my bot left. Thanks. Hersfold non-admin 14:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk attention required

While I don't disagree with any acknowledgement that clerking is a difficult (and largely thankless) volunteer posting, using a putative endorsement of the clerks' conduct as an opportunity for snide innuendo is entirely inappropriate. As clerk for the case, would you consider one or all of the following:

  • Remove the offensive statement;
  • Ask GoRight to refactor his innuendo, and do it for him if he does not;
  • Sanction GoRight for his breach of civility and the assumption of bad faith.

Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he's getting yelled at for that. If he doesn't refactor it, then I'll do it and block him as well. Thanks for the note. Hersfold 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in on that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 17 August 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Your message.

I have no objection to you removing the comment in question. You did just what I would have done after receiving your first message. I don't believe that I have given you any trouble in this regard previously when you have made such requests.

I suppose we can quibble about the propriety of that statement, but the validity thereof should be obvious to all. There is no deadline except that which is intended to hasten the close to avoid additional scrutiny. That is actually a neutral statement if you think about it which could be applied to myself as well as everyone else. The fact that certain individuals spring to mind in this regard (such as those creating and supporting the section in which I made the comment) should be illuminating.

Why given his own posts on the case pages of late, one might think that TOAT believed himself to be the clerk in absentia. A self-appointed extension of the ArbCom to make rulings and injunctions about who may be mentioned in proposals, and who may not. It all is an obvious attempt to cover up that which they do not wish to have exposed. --GoRight (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have abstained from blocking you for trolling, but with your response here I've decided I was assuming too much good faith. It is one thing for Abd to make allegations of cabalism and conspiracy when he is able to provide some evidence to that effect. It is quite another for you to make similar accusations in a purely vindictive nature against those who ask for assistance dealing with your trolling within the case without any sort of basis at all. You are hereby blocked for 48 hours, and may appeal through the normal means. I ask any administrator reviewing the block to contact me or a member of the Arbitration Committee prior to unblocking, and that no admin who has participated in the Abd/WMC case review the block. Hersfold 03:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to bother you

Hey there Hersfold, I am sorry to bother you but would you please take a look at at Abd short and long response to my comments and have him redact/remove the comments that are assuming bad faith in me. If you read my comment, then Abd's short and long comments, and my last response to him you will see what I am talking about when I ask him to remove his uncivil comments. I was told on my talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Crohnie#Clerk_attention that you had requested to comment on your talk page with things that have to do with the case. So, here I am, though I really hate to bother you again. Sorry for taking up your time but I really consider the comments made to me bad faith and rude. I appreciate your helping me in this matter at your convenience. Thanks, --CrohnieGal 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hersfold, this is quite frustrating. I can't for the life of me see any of what I wrote as involving any assumption of bad faith, and Crohnie hasn't been explicit. On the other hand, the comment to which I was responding does apparently contain such an assumption about me. Note that above, she repeats an accusation of bad faith, she considers my comments "bad faith and rude." The apparent ABF or incivility in her prior comment:
  • Abd boldly made comments like this to me and others as ways to itimate and it worked with me. assumes a motive of intimidation when my response shows that such an intention is inconsistent with common sense, that there is a reasonable explanation for what I wrote that involves no intimidation at all. As well, it could hardly be said that it "worked" if she proceeded to proclaim it and my misbehavior all through the RfAr, as she did. She probably means that she was actually frightened. It would be completely stupid for me to intentionally frighten her, and I never suggested that she should not express her opinions.
  • Abd's screaming cabals like he has through this case and apparently now for years (seen through difs provided and doing my own reading to try to understand.) is totally WP:UNCIVIL I don't believed I ever "screamed" cabal, and I only came to the realization that it was appropriate to call a "cabal" the grouping of editors that I'd seen, after filing this case. I did, in fact. recognize a tag-team that I now have called the "cabal," when I compiled evidence for RfC/GoRight over a year ago, as mentioned in my evidence, (Not "years") Yes, I was aware of the effective coordination, but I have made it clear that this is not conscious "collusion," and is not even necessarily reprehensible, it is simply an organizational problem which I consider important to become aware of, otherwise we misunderstand events, such as an apparent "community consensus" when it is really that of a biased group, with prejudgment. I did, however, when I read a newspaper column that referred to the WMC "cabal," know what the author was talking about. While the comunist might be biased, it was not a stupid mistake to use the term, and the same term has been used for the same group of editors, on Misplaced Pages Review. I didn't make it up.
  • Please, put this cabal to bed, make it a civility problem using it or something but please don't give this ugly accusation any teeth. The "ugly accusation" is a very simple observation: people have a tendency to run in packs or tribes, to instinctively back each other up against "outsiders," based on some perceived commonality with other members of the "tribe," and a perceived difference from non-members. While some manifestations of this can get very "ugly" indeed, such as racism, others may seem much more innocuous, but, especially, association of editors based on general content position and mutual trust among those who promote that position, and mistrust of those seen as being opposed to it, is a serious problem for the wiki, that has afflicted it in many ways long before I was involved. No "teeth" are involved in simply recognizing the existence or appearance of cabals (there is more than one, in fact, though the global warming cabal, if we call it that, is the one that I've seen most clearly. In spite of repeated assurances, Crohnie seems to be convinced that I'm trying to get her sanctioned, which is absolutely not the case. An attempt to obtain sanctions exists, to a small degree, for at most a small handful of cabal editors, and for actions that are not simply "cabal membership," rather for specific offenses: edit warring, use of tools while involved -- and more involved than the diffuse "cabal membership." None of that applies to Crohnie, and I've been explicit about that, over and over.
Having said this, you may remove my comment. It was made as an attempt to explain to Crohnie what had happened, but also as a defense against the charges she was repeating. I would suggest that if my comment is to be removed, so too should hers. Otherwise I'd be faced with a necessity to replace the defense part, and I really don't know at the moment how I would do that. I did develop a little evidence in that response, and would probably want to place it in the cabal evidence page to support my reasons for including her in the list (and, as well, to point out, as I did in the comment she is complaining about, that her association was the weakest of all of them). For efficiency, if you think it best, you may remove my comment without notice to me. I'll see it. Thanks, and sorry for the flap. --Abd (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)