Connolley indef'd Options

[Peter Damian]

Connolley now indef blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...am_M._Connolley

Latest nonsense on ANI here.

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

[Jon Awbrey]

Connolley now indef blocked

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William M. Connolley

Latest nonsense on ANI here.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Arbcom?

Goons of August —

Lar, if you don't have the time or inclination to at least look through a contribution history, just keep quite.

Locus Ridiculus

Yeah, Lar, just keep quite.

Jon

[Milton Roe]

Connolley now indef blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...am_M._Connolley

Latest nonsense on ANI here.

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

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

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

[Jon Awbrey]

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

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

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

Jon

[Ottava]

Connolley now indef blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...am_M._Connolley

Latest nonsense on ANI here.

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

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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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

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

But Moulton's more likely flushed blue with x-citement that WC will now show up here.

He's just that perverse.

Jon

[Moulton]

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

[Milton Roe]

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

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

But Moulton's more likely flushed blue with x-citement that WC will now show up here.

He's just that perverse.

Jon

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.

[Somey]

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

I realize Connolley isn't super-popular around here, but this is one of the silliest block pretexts I've ever seen. Essentially, he inserted a parenthetical statement 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.)

[victim of censorship]

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

I realize Connolley isn't super-popular around here, but this is one of the silliest block pretexts I've ever seen. Essentially, he inserted a parenthetical statement 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.)

More proof that Wikipedia is fundamentally evil.

[EricBarbour]

You missed my note, but I'll repost it now: Since WMC has rejected the terms, and indeed decided to increase his volume of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I have blocked him indefinitely. Please note, this is not an "indefinite as in forever" block, this is an "indefinite until he puts down the stick and backs away from the horse" block. He knew (or at least should have known) that his behavior was deemed disruptive, and he was offered a path forward (to have the community or the Arbitration Committee review the sanction, and have it lifted should consensus deem it necessary). He's rejected that, and continued onwards. If someone can get through to him and get him to agree to cut it out, go ahead and unblock him at that time. SirFozzie (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

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.

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Thu 19th August 2010, 11:44pm

[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.

[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.

[CharlotteWebb]

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.

Glad we can agree on something.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

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

How true. Here's a case in point. 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 niceties of policy.

[Somey]

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

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.

[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.

[pietkuip]

... this is one of the silliest block pretexts I've ever seen. Essentially, he inserted a parenthetical statement 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.

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

[everyking]

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

[taiwopanfob]

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

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

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.