Abd-William M. Connolley, The Cabal strikes back Options

[Grep]

Some of the more hilarious rhetoric, most but not all in the pot-kettle department

WMC

• "my attention was drawn to CF"
  (we used to call it stalking)
• admits to protecting a page version for amusement value
• "A often seemed confused about the terms of the ban"
  (that would be "an indeterminate period of approximately a month" which "remains, to be reviewed in approximately another month" )

Enric Naval

• "Abd believes that he knows better than other users"
  (of course, it's Enric itself who knows best)
• "Abd says that hoaxes should not be deleted, and hoaxers tolerated"
  (Abd said that hoaxes should be blanked by any user instead of deleted by admins)
• "Abd assumes the existance of bad-faith cabals"
  (I wonder where he gets that idea from?)
• "Abd performs experiments with democracy"
  (outrageous)
• "Abd sees no problem at all with his very long posts"
  (subheading 25 out of 27 total in Enric's evidence)

Mathsci

• "Abd has made unfounded statements about William M. Connolley" / "WMC is part of some covert off-wiki conspiracy." / "Since this case began he has written that WMC has been "coddling" me."
  (Such as by blocking people who annoy Mathsci, whom WMC meets for drinks IRL)
• "Abd claims to have scientific expertise"
  (Mathsci claims to be a scientist but his expertise is in pure mathematics)
• "Abd appears to be supported by a small tag team"
  (Mathsci's being a little larger)
• "My brief involvement on Talk:Cold fusion has been minimal and constructive"
  (16 edits, including "Abd's contributions here seem to be extremely skewed." "In view of his poor namespace editing record, my advice to Abd is to attempt to edit a non-controversial article on science in order to get more experience in handling scientific sourcing in a completely neutral context. That might be a valuable eye-opener." "Abd is not the person to lead discussions here.")

[Grep]

I mentioned earlier that Hersfold seemed to be getting a little involved for a supposedly neutral clerk. (Don't you just love the way that ArbComm apes the terminology of a real court? I bet they wear black gowns to type their verdicts.) Recently Hersfold issued anedict enjoining civility on all parties. Hilariously a discussion ensued as to whether comments here at WR were actionable, although by a strange coindence only Abd, out of all the involved parties who have been here, was singled out for criticism (thanks Raul654). Hersfold's response was revealing: Unfortunately, as it's off wiki, I can't do anything about it here. Why exactly was it "unfortunate" I wonder.

Meanwhile "uninvolved" TotientDragooned (T-C-L-K-R-D) decided to stick an oar in. For daring to suggest that now-blocked Arkady Renkov might have had a point, he was declared a sock-puppet and forbidden to participate until ArbComm have finished a CheckUser on him. I predict the CU decision will be handed down about an minute before the case is closed (his fault if he misses the opportunity then). There's a pretty clear message for anyone else who dares to criticise WMC now. I wonder if that was the whole point of Renko's intervention?

Obviously the ArbComm have decided to get rid of Abd once and for all and don't care how blatantly they do it.

[Mathsci]

Meanwhile "uninvolved" TotientDragooned (T-C-L-K-R-D) decided to stick an oar in. For daring to suggest that now-blocked Arkady Renkov might have had a point, he was declared a sock-puppet and forbidden to participate until ArbComm have finished a CheckUser on him. I predict the CU decision will be handed down about an minute before the case is closed (his fault if he misses the opportunity then). There's a pretty clear message for anyone else who dares to criticise WMC now. I wonder if that was the whole point of Renko's intervention?

Obviously the ArbComm have decided to get rid of Abd once and for all and don't care how blatantly they do it.

The user contributions of TotientDragooned had a bizarre spurt on 29 December 2008. If he hadn't contributed then, with all the skill of a highly experienced wikipedian, he'd hardly have any contributions.

You must be looking at a wikipedia in a parallel universe. I hope you haven't been swallowed into a wormhole. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/alien.gif)

In the universe that I belong to, Abd is not a member of ArbComm.

[Grep]

The user contributions of TotientDragooned had a bizarre spurt on 29 December 2008. If he hadn't contributed then, with all the skill of a highly experienced wikipedian, he'd hardly have any contributions.

You must be looking at a wikipedia in a parallel universe. I hope you haven't been swallowed into a wormhole. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/alien.gif)

In the universe that I belong to, Abd is not a member of ArbComm.

So if he hadn't increased his number of contributions, he'd have fewer contributions.

It's certainly correct that in my universe I did not write that Abd was a member of ArbComm.

[Mathsci]

You must be looking at a wikipedia in a parallel universe. I hope you haven't been swallowed into a wormhole. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/alien.gif)

In the universe that I belong to, Abd is not a member of ArbComm.

It's certainly correct that in my universe I did not write that Abd was a member of ArbComm.

In my universe Abd seems to be the only person that, to quote you, has "decided to get rid of Abd once and for all and don't care how blatantly they do it." Or am I missing something? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif) (gallic shrug)

[Grep]

In my universe Abd seems to be the only person that, to quote you, has "decided to get rid of Abd once and for all and don't care how blatantly they do it." Or am I missing something? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif) (gallic shrug)

Well, one of them is clearly Hersfold, who finds it so "unfortunate" that he can't do anything about the fact that Abd is posting here. However, perhaps in your universe you don't have access to the workshop page with the proposed remedy "Abd is banned from Wikipedia" proposed by Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and with supporting comments by WMC, Enric Naval, Raul654, Spartaz, Mathsci, Olorinish, ChronieGal. I can see how you would find it easy to miss.

[Abd]

In my universe Abd seems to be the only person that, to quote you, has "decided to get rid of Abd once and for all and don't care how blatantly they do it." Or am I missing something? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/shrug.gif) (gallic shrug)

Well, one of them is clearly Hersfold, who finds it so "unfortunate" that he can't do anything about the fact that Abd is posting here. However, perhaps in your universe you don't have access to the workshop page with the proposed remedy "Abd is banned from Wikipedia" proposed by Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) and with supporting comments by WMC, Enric Naval, Raul654, Spartaz, Mathsci, Olorinish, ChronieGal. I can see how you would find it easy to miss.

What's really cool is that these editors, I think all of them, previously voted to ban me, a huge number of these votes are just repeats of what was proposed when I RfC'd JzG. Predictable. They couldn't pull of a community ban with this if I resisted. Not if ban policy were followed, which on alternate Tuesdays in December actually happens. If ArbComm falls for this, please, block me so I don't waste more time! These dimwits think I actually care about my personal editing privileges! Nope, I'm a stupid idealist, I care more about the project than about my own privileges, and I make no assumption that it's better off with me there, or that the world is better off for it. and *the world* is my real project. I'm editing it.

So: I was banned by WMC, no actual reason given except his expectation that things would be better if he did it. He doesn't need reasons. He's WMC, after all. WMC almost never gives reasons, or thinks up whatever comes into his internal conceptual device on the spot. He was asked why he banned me, and he made a reference to WP:TRIFECTA on the inquiring editor's page, which is basically IAR. I'm a great fan of IAR, I was asked in my RfA, when I narrowly escaped being sysopped, all it would have taken is another 20-25%, what I thought the most important policy was. IAR, I replied, after all, it's Rule Number One. It's amazing how many editors disliked that response. But it *is* Rule Number One.

Actually, it's nearly certain that if I'd had twice as many edits, I'd have gotten the bit, I only had about 1300 edits then, and most opposes cited that, saying, come back when you have more edits. Sure. Except that I don't self-nom, and I was only there because a certain editor wanted me to see how it worked and introduce me to the community, and then he got himself banned for other japes. I'm the only one that stuck. Okay, that and the article on the Easter Bunny Hotline that he was finally banned for.

Just don't try to follow IAR unless you are WMC or Raul654. Anyway, later, when I wrote that his justification was IAR, he denied it. Pinned down with what he'd written, he wrote, and I think this is in the RfAr, that he was just getting rid of a troll, he didn't actually *mean* it. That is so totally cool. WMC is almost my favorite admin, nobody else is this open about what they do. He'll be much less fun without the bit, though, I expect, and might get himself blocked quickly. Ah, well. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

(There are truly excellent admins who are also open about what they do, but it's much easier to be open when you are seriously trying to be fair, recuse at the drop of a hat, etc. What's cool about WMC is that he's a cowboy, and openly admits it. He does whatever he thinks.)

Another excellent piece of business in this RfAr is all the highly experienced editors committing themselves to opposing the maximization of consensus. They are really acknowledging things about themselves that I could never get away with saying. They've got themselves into such a paroxysm of "oppose whatever Abd says" that I could probably say, "all editors on the cabal list should get barnstars" -- which I'm seriously considering -- and they would demand, immediately, No! Ban Them All!

It's better to not debate proposals that nobody has supported (except the proposer).

No! We should always correct any stupid proposals, how could we just let them lie there?

These are editors who complain about the waste of space involved in my trademarked Wall-o-Text style. Where I actually do discuss the topic of the article, with a view toward developing proposed changes. And where it's enough for me that *one* editor read it and pick up on it. I'm not writing for everyone, most editors aren't going to agree at the beginning if it's something that I need to write much about, if it's that obvious, someone would simply have done it already. So why waste time boiling it down for editors who aren't going to read it or accept it anyway? I'll boil it down when there is a need, or I'm asked, "Could you say that more succinctly, please?"

No, that's too much to write. Tl;dr is a lot faster, isn't it? It's a signature: Tiny little dick brain. Please, 'splain this thing to me shorter, I can't be bothered to read the long version, my head will explode.

Probably would, too, not enough room in there. Look, seriously, nobody *ever* has to read anything I write. You are all volunteers, unless you are a moderator who feels it necessary to read everything, in which case maybe I should send you a check. Some people like what I write, some don't, and it doesn't really change much when I boil it down. In fact, they get *more* pissed off the less I actually post.

When Raul654 said that for me to speak on expert retention was asking the fox about guarding the henhouse, I replied something like:

Wouldn't you want to know what the fox thinks? Besides, I don't eat hens, I eat roosters, I love the eggs. Entrusting Raul with checkuser is like .... what? Appointing Josef Stalin Commissioner of Elections? Or what? I can say what it isn't! It's not inspiring to confidence.

Naturally, there was a complaint about my incivility, but it was, in fact, quite a decent and balanced parallel. Fox guarding henhouse, Stalin counting the votes. Apparently they didn't recognize the reference to that quote from Stalin about it not being important who votes, but who counts the votes.

It *is* a little fun. But, in fact, I'd rather be editing an article. Very little time for that now. Bye.

[Peter Damian]

So: I was banned by WMC [..]

From my very limited reading of your contributions here it seems that is one of the few sensible things that Connolley did.

Act III, Scene 6

An attic of a suburban house in Springfield, Massachusetts
Dennis is hanging from the rafters like a bat

Enter Joyce Grenfell

Now Dennis we've talked about this before.

No, we will not play that game -you know very well that Cecily did not like what happened when you made her put on that burka.

Well, if you don't come down from there, your insides will fall out and then who'll be the stupid one?

No I will not ruminate on what you said - I am not a herbivore.

No I will not take him a cup of vodka. Ghengis is in the hallway cupboard, not Joseph. You know what happens when you start telling these little porkies.

And, Dennis, please stop putting that pencil in your ear.

Yes, even if it does come out the other side.

You seem like a very intelligent person, and very amusing (except for the fact that I suspect you have a beard). Why then do you bother with this shit?

[Mathsci]

So: I was banned by WMC [..]

From my very limited reading of your contributions here it seems that is one of the few sensible things that Connolley did.

No comment.

Act III, Scene 6

You seem like a very intelligent person, and very amusing (except for the fact that I suspect you have a beard). Why then do you bother with this shit?

For me WR is for loonie conduct and WP for sensible conduct (apart from the ghost in Handel's bedroom).

I think it might sometimes be slightly the other way round for you.

Anyway, now that Hersfold has gone swanning off to Mustique, Capri or wherever, who knows what will happen next in this ArbCom case? WR provides an antedote to the drama there.

This post has been edited by Mathsci:

[Mathsci]

You seem like a very intelligent person, and very amusing (except for the fact that I suspect you have a beard). Why then do you bother with this shit?

For me WR is for loonie conduct and WP for sensible conduct ...

I think it might sometimes be slightly the other way round for you.

Hmmm (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)