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

[Abd]

The Experiment Wow! Shows how little attention I was paying. It's impossible for any one person to be aware of all that's going on at Wikipedia, I'd say, but a collection of people could manage it. Guido's history shows a great deal to be learned. "Experiment" seems to have been radically misinterpreted, almost as if there were a vicious agenda at work. A community can be vicious if it allows vicious impulses free reign, we are collectively responsible. It's obvious to me that it was time for me to move on, as to my focus. I'm not burning any bridges, but ... neither am I depending on the bridges remaining open. I know how to swim and I know how to fly. And I will not violate any Wikipedia policies, but, it's apparent, that may not make any difference. Thanks, Guido, for your efforts. Ultimately, it all builds the picture.

No judgment implied on the editorial behavior itself, it would take much effort to cover that; what I'm struck by is the "violation of a ban" by email. If that was massive email, okay, sure. But if it was selective email, with an occasional error, quite worrisome, and noted. It reminds me of the Esperanza affair. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to waste their time. Back to articles, slaves! No useless talk!

[Moulton]

What I intend to do is to document, off-wiki, what happened in this case, and edit it down -- yes, I can do that! -- to something that might get read at the Jimbo/Foundation level; and I'll get plenty of help with this, I expect, before I send anything.

If you can boil it down to an atrocious song parody and post it on a little-known personal blog, I can guarantee you that Jimbo will be aroused to react.

[Abd]

MfD:Wikipedia, the Social Experiment
I notice, right away, heavy participation by Verbal, Cab editor. quick comment by Crohnie, WMC, et al. Closed by Seicer as Delete, in spite of obvious lack of consensus. Seicer is probably Cab, from what I've seen.

And I see in the Delete comments what I've seen before, a misinterpretation of a page or concept, almost as if willful. The "Experiment" was not what Guido was doing, but Wikipedia itself. Guido was documenting what happened when experts took on article assignments, you can call that an experiment, but one which, we'd hope, would be replicated! I assume that these experts did nothing other than try to improve articles according to their expertise. What happened when they did that is what I asserted during the current RfAr, they can run into severe problems. It appears that none of the experts survived without being banned.

In reality, aside from this experiment, most experts don't persevere, they recognize they are wasting their time, quickly, and move on. No Cab? Come on! If there is no cabal, then the coincidence of those Delete votes, on something quite different, is astonishing.

[Guido den Broeder]

The Experiment Wow! Shows how little attention I was paying. It's impossible for any one person to be aware of all that's going on at Wikipedia, I'd say, but a collection of people could manage it. Guido's history shows a great deal to be learned. "Experiment" seems to have been radically misinterpreted, almost as if there were a vicious agenda at work. A community can be vicious if it allows vicious impulses free reign, we are collectively responsible. It's obvious to me that it was time for me to move on, as to my focus. I'm not burning any bridges, but ... neither am I depending on the bridges remaining open. I know how to swim and I know how to fly. And I will not violate any Wikipedia policies, but, it's apparent, that may not make any difference. Thanks, Guido, for your efforts. Ultimately, it all builds the picture.

You're welcome.

No judgment implied on the editorial behavior itself, it would take much effort to cover that; what I'm struck by is the "violation of a ban" by email. If that was massive email, okay, sure. But if it was selective email, with an occasional error, quite worrisome, and noted. It reminds me of the Esperanza affair. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to waste their time. Back to articles, slaves! No useless talk!

Naturally, there was no violation at all. It was invented by users with different interests in the same article. I believe I sent a grand total of 3 emails, all of them friendly.

Different from my interests, that is, which coincide with Wikipedia's.

[Abd]

If you can boil it down to an atrocious song parody and post it on a little-known personal blog, I can guarantee you that Jimbo will be aroused to react.

There's an idea, we may try that. Or we may try something else, identify someone who has Jimbo's ear (presumably still attached to Jimbo's head). Indeed, the first approach to Jimbo might be a request to consider the document, or to suggest someone to send it to for review. That's what FA/DP theory would suggest.

[Guido den Broeder]

I notice, right away, heavy participation by Verbal, Cab editor. quick comment by Crohnie, WMC, et al. Closed by Seicer as Delete, in spite of obvious lack of consensus. Seicer is probably Cab, from what I've seen.

Seicer later apologized to me; obviously he is now out of the loop. But all names instrumental in my ban should be familiar, I guess...

Feel free to mention my case when discussing WMC on Wikipedia, if you think it helps.

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Mon 7th September 2009, 8:32pm

[Abd]

Another brilliant little example with Guido. The December ban discussion. What I've seen is that if the Cab can create enough initial impression that neutral editors go along, assuming good faith, after all, so many neutral editors .... then they can gain an apparent "consensus" of even neutral editors. What inspired this comment was the introduction of the fact that Guido put the contents of the deleted essay on his User page.

He was following suggestions from the MfD!

Again, I notice the prominence of Cab editors in this, as with the MfD; the discussion was closed by Seicer as well. The actual block from the ban was by .... (fanfare) ... WMC. Definitely not neutral.

This, folks, was another Cab action. And ArbComm was sucked in, as it has been on other occasions. Guido definitely made mistakes, but ... so does anyone who isn't a mature editor out of the womb. And even mature editors make mistakes.

Feel free to mention my case when discussing WMC on Wikipedia, if you think it helps.

Thanks, but it won't help. I'm still making a few comments here and there, but basically my attention is now off-wiki, I'm paying much more attention to what happens here than to en.wikipedia, and I need to get on with my two projects that I've already described, they are already a lot to chew. I may see you on wikisage, if you don't mind. The more the merrier.

[Guido den Broeder]

Another brilliant little example with Guido. The December ban discussion.

Note how suddenly, in the middle of a discussion where nothing had been settled, the first sign of evidence had yet to be provided, and people invited to comment had yet to respond, WMC breaks in and claims that there is consensus to ban, ignoring various protests to the contrary from both sides.

WMC's action, in fact, had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It was instead his immediate, childish response to me asking him not to editwar over spelling with another user at one of his favourite articles. Needless to say that he immediately resumed editwarring and vandalized the talk page as well.

Of course, the Arbcom refused to investigate any of this.

I may see you on wikisage, if you don't mind. The more the merrier.

You are most welcome.


This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Mon 7th September 2009, 9:43pm

[Cla68]

The case appears to be wrapping up. Abd is banned from Cold Fusion and the rest of his editing will be supervised. WMC is desysopped. I think it's a fair and appropriate decision.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Wed 9th September 2009, 12:31am

[One]

The case appears to be wrapping up. Abd is banned from Cold Fusion and the rest of his editing will be supervised. WMC is desysopped. I think it's a fair and appropriate decision.

Late voting swung the result. For much of the case, only the temp desysop was passing, and sometimes not even that.

[Chindog]

Looks like a good result. Abd banned for 3 months and WMC desysopped.The smallest dogs bark the loudest and longest (until you kick them to the kerb), and WMC was way out of line as well. I predict that WMC will get his tools back in the near future via RFA and Abd will be quickly banned by the community if he does come back. It's a perfect result.

To top it all, cold fusion gets another vocal greybeard proponent with no science credentials or research experience. And Rothwell and Krivit get to enjoy his company on their mailing lists and internet petitions. The perfect payback for their loopy rantings that us serious editors had to endure at Talk:Cold Fusion.

[Moulton]

Abd should get a MicroCrack Palladium Statuette for being the Most Voluble Player in the game.

[Abd]

Abd should get a MicroCrack Palladium Statuette for being the Most Voluble Player in the game.

(laughing all the way to the bank. Donations of "dead" palladium electrodes, or automotive catalytic converters, gratefully accepted at Lomax Design Associates, 40 Fort St., Northampton, MA 01060. Cash is also welcome, and will be used to support the continued work of your voluble servant, Abd.)

To me, a "mistake" is a rare opportunity. Wikipedia continues to ban the relatively expert. Will it learn how to do otherwise? How? I've been proposing an answer for two years. I did not "overplay" my hand, NYB, I played it in the only effective way open to me, by simply being myself, by being real. As long as Wikipedia rejects that and fails to channel it, Wikipedia will fail to realize its ideals.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

I predict that WMC will get his tools back in the near future

In a perverse sort of way, I hope you're right, because if WMC is an admin next February when we hold the annual WP:DICK of Distinction awards pageant, I think he might have a shot at taking the top honors.

[Abd]

Looks like a good result. Abd banned for 3 months and WMC desysopped.The smallest dogs bark the loudest and longest (until you kick them to the kerb), and WMC was way out of line as well. I predict that WMC will get his tools back in the near future via RFA and Abd will be quickly banned by the community if he does come back. It's a perfect result.

It's not perfect, and the brightest arbitrators see that. Many significant issues were raised that will come back.

My prediction: WMC will not get his tools back unless he shows he's made a major turn. He could easily have avoided desysopping if he'd been willing to consider the possibility that I was right. I'd prefer otherwise, but I predict he won't, he'll have too many friends telling him what a shame it was.

Abd will come off the site ban uneventfully. If he is banned again, it will be for off-wiki activity, with all that implies. As an editor who now has a COI, he will have no difficulty with the topic ban, Wikipedia loses for it, but not much, because what he could do as an editor, he can also do as other than one.

Pcarbonn comes off his topic ban in December. Because of the groundwork, including discretionary sanctions, it will be easier for him. I believe he is also now COI, but there are enough non-COI editors, it is enough that the true state of the field is present as advice in Talk. The ACS LENR Sourcebook got the nod at WP:RSN, and that contains a number of reviews of the field, not just Primary source. Krivit has just had an extensive review of the field published under peer review as well.

The Cab lost. While the majority voted for TINC, look at who opposed. Next time, it will be different. The Cab threw almost everything it had into this, and ended up with a mouthful of hair. One editor temporarily banned. Who will now be more effective.

Rooster crows at dawn. Look out your window, I'll be gone.

To top it all, cold fusion gets another vocal greybeard proponent with no science credentials or research experience. And Rothwell and Krivit get to enjoy his company on their mailing lists and internet petitions. The perfect payback for their loopy rantings that us serious editors had to endure at Talk:Cold Fusion.

Not no experience, no biography has been written. But I'm an engineer, not a working scientist. Other people involved on-wiki are scientists. You, whoever you are, are going to be like Woonpton, proving that a little knowledge is dangerous, and you will be dismayed to see how favorable to cold fusion the article(s) become, because that's what in RS. Overwhelmingly.

And now the serious work begins.

[Apathetic]

ugh - with WMC desysopped, expect to see backlogs at WP:AN3

from what I saw, his work there was always pretty spot on.

This post has been edited by Apathetic: Wed 9th September 2009, 3:57pm

[Guido den Broeder]

The case appears to be wrapping up. Abd is banned from Cold Fusion and the rest of his editing will be supervised. WMC is desysopped. I think it's a fair and appropriate decision.

Late voting swung the result. For much of the case, only the temp desysop was passing, and sometimes not even that.

With WMC desysopped and admonished, one would expect that any banning / blocking actions made by him will now be reconsidered, if not simply undone outright. Can we expect this to happen?

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder: Wed 9th September 2009, 4:04pm

[Guido den Broeder]

One would also hope that the Arbcom learns from these procedures, that users standing accused should always be heard before a decision is taken.

If so many of us had not been silenced, WMC could have been stopped a lot sooner. And, you know, he is just one. There are more administrators out there that behave in a similar fashion, and can continue because their victims do not get heard.

[Moulton]

One woefule atrocity deserves another.

There are more administrators out there that behave in a similar fashion, and can continue because their victims do not get heard.

They can always write atrocious song parodies.

[trenton]

fools