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

[Milton Roe]

Noting your fascetiousness interestingly, there's some evidence that deuterium tastes slightly sweet, at least in high concenterations in heavy water. I can't taste the difference myself, however. But heavy water tastes enough like ordinary water to most people that you have to be on the look-out for the taste difference, and perhaps it's all in your mind, hey?

That sounds like something a mindlessly rich person might do. Evian isn't exclusive enough? Well, try some heavy water for alleged calorie-free sweetness.

Oh, Christ, it's 50 cents a gram in bulk, and you can do most interesting experiments with it, with just a few grams. Taste it. Freeze it and note that the cubes SINK in ordinary water, and so on.

Some of us spend a few bucks on curiousity, CoolHand. Sue us.

[Mathsci]

I am not surprised by Abd's block. Nor GoRight's. Birds of a feather and all that ...

Meh. We'll see how it turns out. 2/0 has no consensus for his block ... either before OR after. That's bad enough for him, but his timing utterly sucked. I had been away for over a day and a half and I was engaged in recent change patrol of all things when he issued the block. Now THERE's a real imminent danger to the project.

Still, LHVU makes a credible point that the neutral parties agree that I have crossed some sort of line so as long as I can get 2/0 to actually define what that line was I'll agree not to cross it. Thus far it appears to be limited to sniping and sarcasm on my part. Heh. Like the people I am sniping and sarcasming don't do the same to me.

I can be cooperative when the community actually speaks. I just don't put any stock in the obvious partisan bleating of my political enemies.

If at any stage either of you showed any sign of wanting to add interesting encyclopedic content to WP rather than treating it as some giant political game, many of your problems would go away I suspect.

It's no good Abd spending his time blaming others on WP and insulting them here. Presumably this gives him some kind of a buzz. On the other hand for over a year now has shown almost no interest in writing WP articles.

[GoRight]

I'd be interested in hearing reactions to the sequence of events discussed in this edit. It seems to me that ZP5 raised a valid concern, TOAT simply acted as an enabler for WMC's provocative editing, and then there is of course the issue of WMC's provocative editing. 2/0 seems to be disinclined to notice or act upon WMC's provocative editing. Any theories on why that might be?

[Abd]

Warning: Tome. Do not read if allergic to Abd content, beware of Dog Vomit Slime Mold (see Abd Talk at the top)

I'd be interested in hearing reactions to the sequence of events discussed in this edit. It seems to me that ZP5 raised a valid concern, TOAT simply acted as an enabler for WMC's provocative editing, and then there is of course the issue of WMC's provocative editing. 2/0 seems to be disinclined to notice or act upon WMC's provocative editing. Any theories on why that might be?

Sure. The Pope is Catholic, and you know what bears do in the woods.

Prediction, greater than 50%, I'd guess. WMC, Enric Naval, Mathsci, and JzG will be enjoined from interacting with me on-wiki because of how they have obviously been following me around trying to find "violations" to assert. The same applies to harassment of GoRight and others by the cabal. As to GoRight, though, it will take an ArbComm case to establish the basis. The case(s) already exist for me and those editors.

I'd hardly been editing at all, and for removing a redundant wikilink to an article that isn't about Cold fusion, that I happened to notice because it's on my watchlist and I never dreamed it would be included in a ban, I'm accused of violating my CF topic ban?

(The article is Oppenheimer-Phillips process, and there is no controversy about it, to my knowledge. Yes, a connection can be asserted, peripherally, as can be asserted for a whole boatload of noncontroversial stuff. I don't think I was banned from nuclear physics articles, but if I tried to make an edit to one of those articles making some connection to cold fusion, sure, that would be a ban violation. But removing a redundant wikilink? What it shows is the lengths these idiots scumbags will go to try to ban someone who has disagreed with them. Mathsci talks about editing articles, and sure, good for him, but every bit of fuss he has raised has caused quite a few editors to spend more time not editing articles. Including me, for one. I was starting to do a little wikignoming when blocked. So ... I appreciate the reminder of what a ridiculous waste of time Wikipedia is because of the lack of protection for minority views, stuff that is basic in democracy, but, of course, Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, it also violates basic expectations of fairness, and Wikipedia Review has been quite an education in that respect. My little story has been repeated for many, and that will continue, unless a hand descends from the heavens and fixes it. Or unless ... let's see what happens.)

And I was blocked for a week for a different alleged ban violation, supposedly as arbitration enforcement, when the case calls for graduated blocks, increasing gradually up to a week? By an admin who is citing a post, as cause, in a discussion that was about me and my editing as a violation of the sanction against commenting when I'm not an "originating party," which is a preposterous interpretation of the sanction, which was clearly what it was called, an "MYOB" sanction -- Mind Your Own Business, not a "don't edit unless we specifically name you as a party and permit your participation" sanction." And it was on GoRight Talk, where the comment was welcome.

And in that post, it is no coincidence, I criticized the actions of Future Perfect with respect to his revert warring and threat to block another editor, so he basically blocked me for criticizing him, and the restriction violation was an excuse, a cover, whether he realizes it or not. That's part of what recusal policy is about, requiring admins to recognize when they might act excessively, or might even just be seen as acting excessively.

Another prediction, dicier but still quite possible: Future Perfect either explains to ArbComm, to its satisfaction, why he won't do this again, or he loses his bit. Let's see: I've made this prediction for four administrators, total. Once was long ago and I was naive, and it was not really the same kind of thing, merely a very diffuse argument, so let's set that aside.

That leaves three: JzG and WMC and Future Perfect. Two down, one to go. Note that I warned all three about use of tools while involved, with regard to actions against others, and all three blew it off.

What do I care if I'm blocked? I can still file a case, or it can be filed for me. My one-week block expires in a few days. Let's see ... will I be blocked again based on this comment? I rather doubt it, though it's not impossible. Nothing is impossible on Wikipedia, unless it is sensible decisions, made with minimal fuss.

So, once I'm off my block, I can really go off my block. The restriction absolutely does not prevent me from filing an RfC or an ArbComm case as an "originating party," there would be no way to wikilawyer that one out, and plenty of cause has been set up by these busy bees, totally gratuitously.

And Future Perfect handily set it up by not only revert warring my permitted comment out, but also by blocking me after a dispute between us had been established and was being discussed. That's why I was tickled pink when blocked, besides the fact that it saves me a lot of time that I might otherwise waste on Wikipedia work or comments.

Of course, ArbComm can decide not to accept the case, and could sanction me for filing frivolously. Remember, as well, with an RfC, I'd need to find another certifier to an attempt to resolve the dispute. There could be grounds to go directly to ArbComm, however, given that there has been so much before ArbComm already on this.

Another blast from the past: it was predicted that ArbComm would slap me down if I filed a case against WMC.

In that line, and to quote a great remark from Short Brigade Harvester Boris recently (it was about Future Perfect crowing that he'd reverted my !vote in a poll and warned me about restriction violation): "That went over really well, didn't it?"

I like SBHB, he's often been a cogent commentator. I went to his talk page and referenced his comment, and asked him to stick around, and also invited off-wiki contact.

One dangerous assumption that has been made about me: that if I act, I will necessarily act alone. No, I don't go back to ArbComm alone, not for anything more than some RfAr/Clarification maybe, or a personal response to something. I won't act unless I have support lined up, nor do I recommend anyone to act before ArbComm without that support, particularly if the cabal is involved.

Why would I do all this? Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? No, the opposite, actually. The cabal and similar groups, as well as certain editors, use banning and blocking to get rid of inconvenient editors, even when there are clearly alternatives, and the effect is loss of neutrality of articles, plus it sets up conditions for ongoing disruption.

If it's necessary, sure, ban an editor from an article page, or from certain categories. But from Talk? When inappropriate Talk can quickly be removed, and, even, with enough justification, a bot could be set to revert all the editor's edits, thus requiring, effectively, a second for any comment judging that it was relevant and not disruptive? That could be done informally by any editor backed by consensus, without a bot. Quick and easy. No, they want to punish and they want to completely exclude. Dissenting opinion drives them crazy.

And the effect is long-term violation of the fundamental neutrality policy. It is very important, and not personal. The rock-em block-em reign of terror has to stop, and it has to start by ArbComm taking notice, and if I have to fart loudly in the courtroom to get their attention, I will. Whatever it takes. That's IAR, and if I'm blocked it is absolutely no big deal, unless someone can use it for good purpose. Like getting rid of WMC's admin bit, long abused, to the point of media notice.

I didn't do that, they did. I merely provided the blatant excuse, by calling WMC's bluff and bluster and being blocked. There was cheering in the wikistreets, actually, and we can get an idea of just how popular WMC actually was by his vote in the ArbComm elections. I'd bet every supporter made sure to vote and tried to get whatever votes they could to be cast by others, and the cabal is powerful because they are "core." Which could mean "fanatic." WMC was only popular among the faction that circled him to protect him, to stop a consensus from forming on what were often blatantly inappropriate actions. And it had happened so many times that administrators who saw the problem were in despair that anything could be done about it.

Well, something can be done, but it takes balls. I may use too many words, but I don't think I can be accused of not being bold enough. And, guess what? If I go to ArbComm, I'm not going to put up a word unless it has been vetted and edited by others. They will imagine that I will put up my patented Wall-o-Text ™, and they know how the Arbitration Bored works, often, so they convince themselves that they are perfectly safe, they can do whatever they please and it will go on as before, they will get away with it.

Until they don't.

If I have learned anything, it is to vary behavior. Frequently outside expectations. However, in fact: I have, to the best of my ability, respected the stupid idiotic ArbComm sanctions. I know how to sock successfully and didn't. All the alleged violations were within what I believed permitted, and as objections were made, I curtailed the specific behaviors until I got advice from ArbComm or Arbitration Enforcement permitting or not permitting the behavior. "Respect" obviously means "respect their right of decision, no matter how stupid." There are limits to that, but ArbComm hasn't reached them, nor do I expect it to. Not yet. How bad can it get?

Well, it could get worse. How much worse, I don't know. There are some very good editors on ArbComm, but also some burned-out editors, perhaps a majority, not willing to do heavy lifting, and they don't have much real support, in the way that would be needed, support that would help them to make better decisions based on deeper investigation and analysis and careful deliberation. They don't have time for it, which would suggest structure, but they don't have the structure, either. So .... I'll oblige them and set some up. Off-wiki, where it can't be disrupted by the cabal or by anyone, really, short of governmental-level resources....

[Abd]

I'd be interested in hearing reactions to the sequence of events discussed in this edit.

GoRight, you are a fucking troublemaker. God bless the troublemakers, particularly your kind. I wouldn't have continued to defend you and cooperate with you if you had not shown that you actually are able to cooperate, that you just want a level playing field, not to control the whole damn game.

You were blocked because you raised cogent arguments that they couldn't answer, and they'd have had to think and maybe read stuff longer than they like, so ... you were blocked without consensus, that's obvious. Played skillfully, GoRight, and only if you are attached to your account and its right to edit without interruption could you be considered to have "failed." You have spoken truth to power, for roughly two years now, and it's remarkable how long you have survived. You defied Raul654 when he was still a power to be reckoned with, and you chose your battles, you didn't challenge your editing restriction vs. the WMC article, you just kept plugging away, dealing with whatever obstacles arose, and you are continuing to do that.

They hate that, and they have been waiting for the chance to give you the boot. But they don't realize that it was a trap, not one that you set -- you don't think this way -- but that was arranged by reality and by their own viciousness. They have exposed themselves, even more, every move like the discussions leading up to your block makes the problem more and more visible, if somehow attention can be drawn to it. And those in the community who want to confront the behavior are becoming more skilled and effective.

Getting blocked, particularly in how it came down, gives you entry to ArbComm, and they are too stupid to realize this, it gives you some time on a certain kind of center stage where part of the influence that runs Wikipedia is determined.

I wrote, on TenOfAllTrades Talk, that I was always aware of ArbComm looking over my shoulder. Now, that wasn't exactly true, because my awareness wasn't continuous, but it was a guiding principle, to try to make sure that my actions, if carefully examined, would stand up. Indeed, I failed to factor for how stupid the majority was, how ready to make snap decisions that would be completely unsupportable if they gave them a little more thought. But I had to learn the political realities of Wikipedia, that was part of my project. Anyway, TenOfAllTrades called this "grandstanding." However, his action at that point will be quite embarrassing to him, should he look back at it years from now, having matured more. I was trying to warn him that if he didn't seriously consider what I was saying to him, his friend WMC was likely to lose his bit. I was practically begging him to give it a look and think of the welfare of his friend and the project, and mediate. Or, alternatively, if I was wrong, try to explain to me how I was wrong. Assume good faith, that I am merely mistaken. Nope. He blew it off and actually complained about it as some attempt to threaten him.

It's not only ArbComm looking over my shoulder, it is my future. I look back at what I wrote years ago, frequently.... and I try to be prepared for that. I have to live with myself, for the rest of my life. Maybe even longer, eh?