Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Peter Damian

Connolley now indef blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley

Latest nonsense on ANI here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Arbcom.3F

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Goons of August —


Yeah, Lar, just keep quite.

Jon

Posted by: Milton Roe

Gads, that's quite a climate change for WP.

Do you suppose it's anthropogenic, or can Arbcom actually be classed as human beings?

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Methanes it's the usual thane — Bovine Wiki-Φlatulence.

Jon

Posted by: Ottava

Out go the liberal scientists to make way for the social libertarians (the only descriptive that can lump the porn freaks with the sexual deviants - pedos, animal people, etc) as the new ruling "ugh".

But on the other hand, I have to sympathize with WMC on the fact that he is an expert (even though I don't consider his field as completely legitimate -see the email fraud-, he is the most qualified to discussing it as a system in and of itself). Wikipedia hates experts. Well, the experts tend to hate Wikipedia (hence edit warring, feuding, and the rest). That is probably why those that cater just to "experts" fell apart so badly - anyone claiming their self an expert is normally an egotistical, maniacal douchebag (and you can call me that, I don't mind).

I do wonder if, upon reading this, Moulton just wet himself in excitement as another one of his frenemies is gone.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

Hey, you're the one standing in a puddle of wiki-piddle.

But Moulton's more likely http://www.alibaba.com/product-tp/101275348/Cleanbio_Blue_Flush_Wc_Toilet_Cleaner.html with x-citement that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WC&oldid=375998284 will now show up here.

He's just that perverse.

Jon

Posted by: Moulton

To the best of my recollection, I've never interacted with WMC.

Posted by: Milton Roe

So am I! Head in the WR WC is just the beginning. WMC is in for some bothering, baiting, annoying, pestering, hectoring, an e-wedgie, and some internet Indian burns.

WMC, we wouldn't enjoy seeing you take it nearly so much, had we not seen how you can dish it out.

Posted by: Somey

I realize Connolley isn't super-popular around here, but this is one of the silliest block pretexts I've ever seen. Essentially, he http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=next&oldid=379384037 into some admin's warning on his talk page not to "edit comments made by other editors," "per the outcome of a recent enforcement request" against him, so now he's indefinitely blocked. Only he wasn't changing the comment at all - he clearly labeled it as his own insertion, with his initials. What's more, his argument that the restriction (which led to the 'enforcement request") is invalid and shouldn't apply to his own talk page appears fairly solid to me.

In effect, he was blocked indefinitely for harmlessly thumbing his nose at somebody.

I guess you could say this is a form of "incivility," which Connolley is famous for at this point, and that technically this particular block (which isn't likely to last, I expect) could be more of a "body of work" kinda thang. Still, it's a shame they have to keep coming up with these pretexts - they make it fairly easy for less-involved "drive-by" critics to bash WP for being arbitrary, silly, and rules-obsessed - and there are likely to be a lot of drive-by critics in this case, given Connolley's history. (Assuming the block lasts for more than a couple of days, at least.)

Posted by: victim of censorship

More proof that Wikipedia is fundamentally evil.

Posted by: EricBarbour

I haven't seen much of this Stephan Schulz (T-C-L-K-R-D) character before.
(Although I notice that his talkpage is full of top-grade douchebaggery. Just a
WMC whore.)

There's another asshole for your "amusement", Lar.

Posted by: Ottava

Am I the only one wondering why an Arbitrator is enforcing ArbCom restrictions and violations?

The whole conflict of interest and potential bias seems like he shouldn't be involved in anyway. It is kinda like a judge being the executioner also, and hurrying up real fast before a possible appeal.

Fun times.



Thanks SirFozzie for showing another reason why WR people shouldn't trust people who saying everything that pleases them then runs for ArbCom.

Posted by: Moulton

It has long been a customary (if appalling and reprehensible) practice for officious admins in WMF-sponsored projects to act as plaintiff, arresting office, bailiff, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner in these anachronistic reprisals of the hoary old Bill of Attainder — a corrupt, foolish, and abusive tool of governance which modern governments wisely eschewed and abandoned over two centuries ago.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

Glad we can agree on something.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

How true. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=Will+Beback&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=. A cursory examination of these blocks will demonstrate that the admin in question routine indef-blocks his opponents in content disputes, without bothering to observe any of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Presenting_a_case.

Posted by: Somey

I'm not sure I'm quite understanding your banter, squadron leader...?

Are you saying Mr. Fozzie attempted to curry favor with WR members, possibly using false statements, as a way of getting elected to the Arbitration Committee? I dunno, that seems like a poor strategy to me.

I'd run for ArbCom myself, but apparently you need an account.

Posted by: The Joy

Well, SirFozzie's one-year term as arbitrator is nearing its end. As a lame-duck arb, it doesn't matter if he's popular with everyone or not. I highly doubt SirFozzie will ever run again after this whole Climate Change kerfluffle. It has to have soured everyone. Run for Arbcom once, shame on everyone. Run for Arbcom twice, shame on me!

I really haven't followed this Climate Change fiasco, but this has to be the most bitter dispute in Wikipedia history (and Giano has not been involved in it, which will stump all those that blamed him for sowing discord into Wikipedia). Lar et al. are all arguing and trading insults on that same AN/I thread while WMC's block is being discussed. I want to laugh and cry all at the same time. It's complete and total madness. At least no one's pretending to like each other as Wikipedians are required to do. Yet, if this is honesty and the true face of Wikipedia, then core of Wikipedia is indeed very rotten.

Posted by: pietkuip

Thumbed his nose at admins! That is not harmless, that is disruption! Something like Lèse majesté or even blasphemy.

Posted by: everyking

Up until now I had no idea he had fallen out of favor at all. What exactly happened that led to this situation?

Posted by: taiwopanfob

Not sure if even the admins think of themselves like that. Perhaps if you insulted Jimbo himself?

I think a closer analogy you are looking for is contempt of cop. Which is indeed a serious offense in the minds of the constabulary.

Posted by: Jagärdu

I think this is spot on. When I saw this nonsense my first thought was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates#Cambridge_arrest. The whole thing makes those involved look about as mature as a couple of school boys fighting over who deserves to be the captain of the kickball team at recess.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

"As completely moronic actions go, that one scores highly. An indef block for no harm at all seems about the most stupid action I've ever seen on wiki. Well done Sir Fathead" - William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Posted by: Lar

Apparently WMC's mottos include "Do as I http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats, not as I do."

The root of this dispute, IMHO, is that the AGW faction, who happen to be right about the science, want to control the POV of everything related to AGW, rather than letting things be presented and letting folks make up their own minds.

• Skeptics are all made to look foolish (BLP violation)
• AGW alarmists are all made to look brilliant (BLP violation as well)
• Even the most reliable sources get removed from articles if they support, in any way, the notion that we don't know everything there is to know
• Even the most tenuoous sources get included if they support the notion that AGW is a fact

I'm surprised Moulton hasn't latched on to this... it's just like ID, only more important (If ID is taught in schools we get stupider kids... if AGW is ignored, life as we know it may be severely impacted)... it even has a lot of the same players.

I'm personally an alarmist on this. I just don't care for the factional tactics being employed here.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Just as SlimVirgin was desysopped for some apparently petty technical offense. It seems that when WP finally moves against its most celebrated Dicks and Dickettes, it cannot bring itself to admit that it has been harboring sociopathic POV pushers in its very bosom, but must invent a face-saving pretext.

Posted by: Milton Roe

Pretty much like society in general. Consider O.J. Simpson's last conviction, which was certainly a partial proxy. Or Al Capone's stretch on Alcatraz for tax evasion, which I think is still a record for a first conviction for that crime.

Posted by: Somey

Factional tactics are endemic to Wikipedia, though, at least in controversial subject areas - and very few effective tools are available to deal with them other than blocking/banning. This is sort of what WMC was trying to demonstrate, seems to me - MediaWiki doesn't actually prevent him from editing other people's comments, and it needs that capability, along with many other capabilities of that nature. Aside from that, you're right about Connolley; since he's unwilling to accept the possibility that he may be wrong about AGW (and I would argue that he isn't wrong, personally), and over the years on WP he's become bitter and sarcastic about it, he really can't work within the Wikipedia collaboration model anymore (if he ever could). But the weak point there is still the collaboration model, not Connolley, who has the weight of evidence clearly on his side. True, it's all recent evidence, but the currency of the evidence should be an advantage for Wikipedia, not a problem like it is now.

I guess the question is, is there any way to help prevent people from becoming bitter and sarcastic in situations like this, or can the admins (and other users) learn to accept that people are going to eventually become bitter and sarcastic? (Okay, that's actually two questions, but it looks like the answer is "no" on both counts.)

Also, maybe we need a blog post on the question of engineered ban-pretexts vs. opportunistic ban-pretexts... Realistically, most ban-pretexts are likely to be opportunistic, but since an admin can't publicly say, "we've been waiting for an excuse to ban this guy and this one looked as good as any," you end up with people speculating on whether incidents like this are completely manufactured for the purpose of removing people who are "disruptive."


Well, that's the important thing.

Posted by: Abd

Well, this is a long case study of WMC's block history. The cat has nine lives, and it looks like he might be running on his ninth or so.

That is one amazing block log. Yeah, I've looked at it before! But it just goes on and on. With far less disruption than Connolly -- almost none by comparison -- Scibaby was indeffed and when he socked, considered banned. And so we got the whole Scibaby Monster Sock Farm, over 500 and counting.

Look how many times WMC was blocked and then unblocked because the blocking admin was "involved." What WMC did over and over was block and protect/unprotect while involved. He wasn't blocked while a sysop. Does that mean his behavior improved? Maybe. More likely, not. Rather, sysops don't block sysops, and those that do have a high rate of losing their tools.

I find it amazing that in November 2005 he gets blocked twice, 24 hours, two separate admins. Two months later, he's an admin and is testing the block tool on himself, checking out to make sure that he can unblock himself. (Ottava Rima on Wikiversity last month seemed to have thought I didn't know that he'd be able to do this. Silly boy! I'd read this block log long ago, when it was much shorter! I only blocked Ottava for 2 hours. Would I dream of risking criticism for unblocking myself if it meant waiting only one more hour, and nothing in particular was happening? Only if I thought I was bulletproof.)

No more blocks for almost three years. Then he's desysopped.

So in September 2009, he's blocked. He's unblocked for 12 hours. Unblocked 43 minutes later with the summary: (consensus at WP:AN suggests blocking admin was involved; block therefore inappropriate)

Now, what is the first lesson in the Block Appeal Handbook?

Never appeal based on a claim of bias, for an unblocking administrator will always consider the reasons for the block, not whether or not the blocking admin was biased. Again and again, I've seen unblock templates where the editor screamed "Biased!" -- and where the blocking admin definitely was biased! -- and the block would be declined. And, in fact, that was proper. Only if there were no reason given would it then start to be a reasonable claim. In which case unblock is not based on bias but lack of a justification for blocking. But what happened at AN/I? I haven't looked, but I bet I've seen it a hundred times. The blocking admin became the topic of discussion. This continued.

WMC was then blocked by two more administrators. His friends were getting tired by this time.

Then, May 18, Lar blocks for one hour. 44 minutes later, 2/0, whom I recall as being pretty supportive of WMC, unblocks, with ‎ (I think blocking administrator is WP:INVOLVED here - requesting review at WP:AN/I)

In other words, in order to oppose the block, instead of waiting for 16 minutes, 2/0 claims "involvement" and unblocks on that basis. That is blatant bias! There is no way that the issues could have been discussed in that time. And then he requests review. Now, here is what that would mean in a sane system. He's involved himself, but considers there to be an emergency, so he goes for review. If he were neutral, there would be no need for review. Someone else would ask for review. If the involvement is serious enough, even asking for review will not avoid desysop. That's precedent, but ... precedent doesn't mean shit if you've got enough friends, and WMC still had enough. Enough that this whole mess is now before ArbComm, and instead of making decisions based on the Obvious Fucking Facts, they froze the case July 19, and have been dithering in camera since then.

At some point, ArbComm moved all negotiations, it appears, off-wiki. I won't explain how disastrous that is. It means that top-level decisions on Wikipedia are being made where the evidence and real arguments are not being revealed. There are reasons to discuss things privately. But in cases I've examined lately, what should be rare has become the norm. And this is what power does to people if it is unrestrained.

Any arbitrator could blow the lid off of this. We elected arbitrators to represent us, because we trusted them. But ... I'm pretty sure that they threaten each other. Or convince each other that disagreements should be concealed "for the good of the wiki." The opposite is true, and all the literature on open societies and volunteer projects is in the contrary direction. Open disagreement can be resolved and consensus found. Secret proceedings demolish the very foundations of consensus, which is crucial to Wikipedia's mission and foundational approach.

I do know why they do it, though. They do it because the open processes are totally fucked. They never figured out how to provide structure so that real deliberation and real consensus process are followed (they are very similar to each other). And, what I've seen, they don't want to know.

So, while ArbComm hems and haws and dithers and seems unable to even come up with, say, injunctions (i.e., temporary decisions based on an apparent need, but not necessarily proven facts yet, like they could enjoin Lar from certain actions and they could enjoy so and so from this and that, with no presumption of blameworthiness), WMC obviously continues on the same course that caused Lar to block him.

Blocked, then, by BozMo for 15 minutes, (Can be shortened if agrees to behave and says sorry)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=364270055&oldid=364269482.. WMC blasts away as soon as he's off the block, apparently. Blocked again by BozMo, set for 3 hours, ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment: repeated PA).http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=364272055&oldid=364271855 Then unblocked in only 24 minutes, (reasoned appeal). Okay, I'll look at this. I've added diffs to the occasion for the blocks to the previous sentences. (BozMo deleted the edits.) WMC was at this point blocked from editing his own Talk page, so http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliam_M._Connolley&action=historysubmit&diff=364274145&oldid=364272055 is what BozMo would have seen there before unblocking. Nothing on-wiki, but BozMo was looking at an old precedent with Giano. In fact, WMC had now been blocked quite a few times without a huge drama. Other times there was drama.....

And then WMC unstruck again what BozMo had struck. Nobody blocked. WMC escapes again, stay tuned for the next installment....

WMC thanked him for making the "correct decision based on precedent." Which was one of the weirdest precedents I'd seen. Apparently ArbComm is interpreted as having essentially ruled that Giano was block-proof, except by going through ArbComm.... What I saw about the real precedent was that admins had better know what they are doing when blocking Giano, that's all. BozMo had a clear basis, easily seen, it should not have been controversial at all. He was intimidated, successfully.

Next block was by Wordsmith, for 48 hours. No unblock. Extended by Sandstein to 4 days based on violations on the Talk page, talk page access blocked. Sir Fozzie comes in and revises it to original expiration, leaves Talk blocked. Next day, right after the block expires, Sir Fozzie blocks again, indef. ‎ (Continued violation of CC/General Sanction on inserting comments to other people's statements.) See http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=02&f=86&t=30469&qpid=248764 If so, SF was baited into a recusal violation. This example was WMC deleting a comment by SF. The precedent is ... don't do that, don't block someone for being uncivil to you, or for revert warring with you or the like. Users who are blocked or who have just been blocked are expected to be angry with the blocking admin, and are normally cut quite a bit of slack. If they arent' defenseless and clueless SPAs, that is. That error was, in fact, what trapped the admin who had blocked Giano. Giano had told him what he thought of him and so the admin lengthened the block. No, no, no! WMC knows this principle. He may have been using it.

WMC continues to revert war with editors on his Talk page. It's debatable if he can do this. My sense is, yes. He has the right to remove comments that are not a necessary part of a block and block review process. He may remove warnings, thus acknowledging receipt of them. But BozMo seems clueless, up against the master.

So, today, Atama unblocked, ‎ (Per discussion at WP:ANI, the sanction does not apply to your own talk page.)

That's a technicality! I've always understood that I can delete other people's comments, but not change them in such a way as to change the meaning. I have taken someone's comments, and responded interspersed, with a link preceding it to the original comments, and with clear separation of their text from mine. I have looked at way too many WMC edits this evening, and I'm not clear as to whether or not he violated the ordinary restriction.

WMC continued, on his Talk page, with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=prev&oldid=379932285.

Sir Fozzie is recused on the Climate Change case which could result in a ban for WMC. However, I'm sure, the other arbitrators will not fail to notice WMC's comments. Note, as well, that ordinary editors would be blocked quickly for comments like what he's made.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=380060206#Block_of_User:William_M._Connolley_by_User:The_Wordsmith to the whole sorry mess.

The unblocking admin acknowledges that what WMC did was violating general Talk rules. In other words, this was a pure wikilawyering unblock. The block was based on specific sanctions, which may have been an error. But the substance of the block was correct. Sorry, the officer cited the wrong section in arresting the bank robber, let him go. Of course, WMC isn't a bank robber.

Just a highly disruptive editor who has gotten special treatment for a long, long time, to the point that he is probably the most famous individual editor, as the supposed leader of a cabal, so-called in the media. And by me, of course. That's a big part of why I was put under sanctions myself. For calling a "mutually involved faction" a "cabal." ArbComm apparently wanted to use their own dictionary. One that hasn't been published anywhere. My comments were uncivil because they said that I must have meant something uncivil. Everybody knows that "cabal" means secret collusion. Everybody except dictionaries and me and a few biased observers....

This was considered such a horrible accusation that the case pages for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley were blanked. Such a horrible accusation that I was sanctioned for incivility and making "accusations" that I didn't provide evidence for. But I provided evidence for what I wrote. Just not for the meanings that ArbComm proceeded to invent for what I'd said, which contradicted what I'd actually said.

Idiots. Yes, Fatheads. I can't say that about Sir Fozzie, I don't think he was on the Committee then. But some surprising people voted for those findings. It's one of the reasons I gave up on Wikipedia.

Posted by: Somey

I noticed that on Connolley's blog, he's edited a significant number of comments by appending his own parenthetical statement on at the end, always with "-W." at the end.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/06/wiki_madness.php

I guess he figured if it was OK to do it on his own site, why not his own talk page? Surely the admins would all know about his blog-comment-editing habit and not think it was such a big deal.

Posted by: Cla68

I've said this before, the straw that broke the camel's back with WMC and his group was when they attacked the BLPs of their idealogical adversaries. This was the same issue which finally galvanized WP's administration to take action against the IDCab. Here's the thing, if you're POV-pushing for the "in" idea on some science, like AGW, which I'm still reserving judgement on, WP's admins will let you slide to some extent. But, when you start attacking BLPs, using sketchy sources and being hypocritical in your application of the BLP policy, then people start to take notice. Any idealogical activists and WP editors out there who are reading this thread take notice. Don't mess with the BLPs. You might get away with it for awhile, but sooner or later it will be noticed and it will be the eventual end of your POV party.

Posted by: Abd

Not harmlessly. He knew what he was doing. His intention was to provoke Sir Fozzie into blocking him. It worked.

That's called "trolling."

It is far from harmless. It's a deliberate provocation. And Sir Fozzie fell for it. That's his problem. His problem is easily fixed, though I'm not sure it will happen. After all, he's an Arbitrator means never having to say you're sorry.

Not really. Some have. But I rather doubt that SF will up and say, you know, I shouldn't have blocked him. I should have gone to AN/I and asked for a neutral admin to look at it.

What would I have done as a neutral admin? I would have blocked for incivility, a number of times over. Unfortunately, under my own interpretation of recusal policy, I could only do this once. Then I'd have to let another admin handle it for the future. That's part of wikitheory, often missed. Sir Fozzie allowed himself to get too involved.

But that doesn't mean that WMC should have been unblocked, not without some agreement, at least. That a blocking admin blew it is never a legitimate reason to unblock. It would be a reason to unblock that there either was no offense in the first place, or that there is no reason to fear that an offense will repeat. A short block is going to expire. Indefs, if overkill, can be replaced with a shorter block.

But WMC and his friends have turned everything into a personal battle. It is almost guaranteed that they will attack anyone who blocks. They think of it as a factional battle, Wikipedia is, to them, a battleground, the very charge they have laid against others. So if you act against WMC, you must be supporting the opposing faction, and that is how you will be framed, unless you are framed as a mere incompetent boob and fathead. The idea that an admin could block in simple good faith, attempting to enforce policies, is beyond them.

They don't agree with the policies and guidelines and ArbComm rulings, and they have been very explicit about this, several administrators included, and ArbComm does nothing.

No, it's not harmless. These are adminstrators who use their block tools against people they don't like, and they use it against POV they don't like, and they have been doing it for years. It was pointed out before me, I pointed it out, and it has been pointed out by others -- including Lar -- and it will continue to be pointed out, until there is no longer any need to point to it. That's the way the world works, in fact. Sometimes it takes years. In fact, sometimes it takes centuries or millenia.

As to the recusal policy interpretation that I referred to, I proposed this, more or less, in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. The cabal thought it ridiculous, a wikilawyer, they imagined, could make himself immune to being blocked by screaming "recusal policy." No, that's a complete misunderstanding of recusal policy. It would only be true if someone someone survives being blocked by, say, all the active admins on the project, or all of them that might be willing to block. If that's a small faction, then the person should not be blocked! But if it is, say, more than half, there you go. The person will be indeffed long before they reach that point. WMC isn't even close.

ArbComm, in the Giano case mentioned above, appears to have dumped wikitheory in favor of "Call ArbComm," which is, shall we say, stupid. What's wrong with an admin making a good faith block? Is this any worse if it is of Giano than of any other editor? If it's an error, it's easy for another admin to unblock when he puts up an unblock template. The problem with the Giano situation is that admins were willing to wheel war over it..... or so the said. Was there a repeated action by a single admin? That would be true wheel-warring. A series of actions back and forth, different admin each time, isn't exactly a wheel war, in my opinion. It is a rough poll, majority wins. It seems that the ArbComm position became that all decisions re Giano needed to be made by ArbComm, which is about guaranteed to mean no restrictions. Unless one faction or the other becomes predominant on ArbComm.... but others may know this case much better than I.

Posted by: Abd

In short? I warned him and he decided that I was an enemy and he came after me. Mistake. He believed that he was bulletproof, he'd escaped censure so many times by his friends popping up and preventing a consensus from forming against his blatant abuse.

Then, when he was desysopped as a result, he proceeded to thumb his nose at ArbComm and the rest of the idiots who run Wikipedia, basically daring them to block him. It's amazing how resistant they were. Or, more accurately, how many in the community would rush up to rescue him.

He didn't exactly fall out of favor. Rather, the coalition that his survival depended on started to fall apart and to lose power. I had discovered that he was widely disliked by other administrators except his factional buddies, but they felt powerless and despair over doing anything about it.

So I did something about it. I was warned that I could not possibly succeed. I was certainly warned that I"d be banned. I knew that, and I have always believed that my personal ability to edit Wikipedia was only that of one single editor, whereas the situations I became involved in involved many editors who were being excluded, frustrated, and sometimes banned. Stopping that process would produce far more useful labor for the project than anything I could possibly do.

So, from my point of view, I succeeded. Now, was it worth it? That's another question, but that's about the value of the whole project. It's questionable. If Wikipedia does not address the structural issues, ultimately, I'd say, all the work I've put in would be lipstick on a pig. It might make her look a little better for a while ... but.

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yep. Just that simple.

Posted by: Abd

People think so. However, I have a friend who is a lawyer. He was stopped by a cop for speeding one time, and he had reason to think the cop was being abusive. When the cop returned to his car, my friend raised his finger in the famous salute.

The cop came storming back to the car, red-faced. And my friend just looked at him. And the cop turned around and went back to his car. If he'd touched the guy, and unless he managed to lie about it -- always a risk -- my friend would have gotten rich.

It contempt of cop is not a crime. Period. Disobeying a lawful order of a cop is.

That doesn't mean that contempt of cop isn't dangerous. It is. Cops do not always follow the law, and sometimes they get away with it. But is a cop really willing to stand before a court and perjure himself? For what? Just to get back at someone for giving him the finger? They are called professionals for a reason. Most of them are.

But Wikipedia has no professional-class training for admins. I don't think that recusal policy is explained well at all, and there is a reason for that. Not explaining it gave enough admins enough extra power that they don't want it explained. They couldn't continue to get away with their abuse.

I just proposed a clearer recusal policy on Wikiversity. So far, three comments, as I recall. One reasonably friendly from a reasonably friendly admin who isn't block-happy. Two strong oppositions from the two most abusive custodians there. Not a surprise.

They claim that recusal policy would be unworkable on such a small wiki. Which is preposterous. Recusal policy allows acting in an emergency even though required, normally, to recuse. But how one proceeds is different. If an admin has no recusal obligation, then the admin can act. Period. Best judgment, basic standard is the welfare of the community and project, which is paramount, with policies being only strong indications of what is, in fact, best.

However, if there is an emergency and the admin on the spot to deal with it has a recusal requirement, the admin can still act but must immediately consult the community and turn it over, not standing against reversal by any other admin.... but what I've seen is the opposite. Not only have involved admins blocked, say, indef, but they have not taken the matter to a noticeboard, and they have said "do not unblock without my consent."

And nobody has said boo! to them. Until some started ....

Posted by: EricBarbour

Yep. Just that simple.

Now, if we could just convince more WP Jimbo-Aiders of this.

Posted by: Abd

A number of the people who have blown the whistle on WMC and the cabal are also quite concerned about global warming. I am. Atren is.

But Wikipedia is not a device for promoting social and scientific causes, no matter how "noble." Personally, scientific objectivity is crucial to making the best decisions about topics like global warming, and as soon as the scientific community becomes locked into factions, it starts making bad decisions.

The GW skeptics deserve the right to edit the project the same as those who are on the pro-AGW side. BLP standards should not be applied differentially to people depending on the opinion of the cabal about them. Balance should be decided just as the policies require, not through revert warring controlled by a very small number of editors who always show up to revert out reliably sourced contributions because they "unbalance" the article.

If a view is fringe, then there will be more sources, or sources of better quality on the other side to balance out the alleged fringe view. And ArbComm ruled this way, in RfAr Fringe science, a decision which the cabal particularly detested.

Posted by: thegoodlocust

Yeah that has basically been my point of view as well, which is another reason why the cries of "you lack da edits to criticize!" ring hollow. What is the point of fighting tooth and nail for a few edits when they've set up a nice little system that chases away the vast majority of other editors?

Posted by: thegoodlocust

No, NW brought this up somewhere but it is totally at odds with observed facts. IIRC Connolley has never inserted his comments into others on wikipedia like he did when he was poking at the Wordsmith and SirFozzie. His sanction was largely due to him and his friends constantly deleting/editing of other people's comments to say things like "PA redacted" when someone called him by his first name - real childish crap.

Additionally, comparing two different systems, editing on wikipedia and the commenting system at his blog is simply apples to oranges. This was an after the fact excuse to try to make his trolling look more reasonable.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

Does he know Chase Me Ladies, I'm the Cavalry?

By the way, since WMC was unblocked and the issue is resolved, why are we still using this discussion?

Posted by: gomi

[Modnote: We aren't. The OT stuff has been moved http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=30493&view=getnewpost and the topic is now closed.]