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

[Grep]

Mathsci, if you are a professional mathematician as you say, then why on earth are you still at Wikipedia bickering with all manner of kooks?

Give it up. Move on. You know you can't win.

Do a statistical analysis on that.

I don't think this can be the mathematical member of the team -- a Berkeley mathematician would have understood the reference to the characteristic of a field.

[Moulton]

Ah yes. Rings, Fields, Groups, and Cabals.

All part of Modern Mathematics.

[Grep]

I did a rough edit count for the various pages for this case. I see that WMC has made about 135 edits while Abd has made 362. Mathsci (who worked hard to promote themselves as "uninvolved") has made 345 and Raul654 has made 145. That's surprisingly little for WMC as one of the two participants and an awful lot for Mathsci as onlookers to a case they don't think they're involved in. Is there a meat-puppetry case to be made here?

[Mathsci]

Mathsci, if you are a professional mathematician as you say, then why on earth are you still at Wikipedia bickering with all manner of kooks?

Give it up. Move on. You know you can't win.

Do a statistical analysis on that.

I don't think this can be the mathematical member of the team -- a Berkeley mathematician would have understood the reference to the characteristic of a field.

What was Kato saying? It's on WR that we have the kooks. Grep apparently has difficulties in eliminating one variable from the simultaneous equations x_1 + ... + x_n=0 and x_1^k + ... + x_n^k = 0. Poor Grep.

[Abd]

I did a rough edit count for the various pages for this case. I see that WMC has made about 135 edits while Abd has made 362. Mathsci (who worked hard to promote themselves as "uninvolved") has made 345 and Raul654 has made 145. That's surprisingly little for WMC as one of the two participants and an awful lot for Mathsci as onlookers to a case they don't think they're involved in. Is there a meat-puppetry case to be made here?

No. There has to be meat for meat puppetry, and there is no real meat there. Just a skinny, standard my-side-is-right and the-other-side-is-evil beef.

This is normal cabal stuff. So many have been denying "cabal" for so long that it can come up and punch them in the nose and they will wonder "Where did that come from? Did you see anything? I don't see anything?"

It was truly necessary that I defy the ban, because as long as I didn't, they wouldn't see that WMC was continuously threatening to block me, and contiinuing the threat during the case. At least some of the onlookers, including arbitrators, got it.

Oh! He would actually block. I didn't realize that! How wildly inappropriate! We will have to ask him not to do that again. But not too harshly, he might take offense like JzG and vanish.

I really meant it, I can't keep writing about this, but it takes me a couple of minutes to write this here. To cover the same basic content translating it into what can be said on Wikipedia, filtering out any implications that would sprout legs and trample the flowers, I'd have to spend ten times as much time.

WMC has claimed that the AN/I close was irrelevant. Isn't that interesting? Because if it was irrelevant, then he had no right to block me the first time. Admin bans cannot be strictly imposed, otherwise an admin could arbitrarily block an editor, just tell the editor not to edit the article first. Most self-respecting editors would say "Why?" And when the admin wouldn't tell them, probably more than half would blow it off. And rightly so. An admin cannot demand that an editor not edit non-disruptively, and it is edits which can be disruptive, not editors.

Community and ArbComm bans are different. In order to avoid contention over every single edit, the default is that any edit by any banned editor may be reverted and the editor blocked.

Massive confusion over this is totally normal on Wikipedia. Which has no means of resolving such confusion, because try to make it explicit in policy, the discussion gets disrupted, and ArbComm can't address stuff like this very easily. This was an opportunity, but ArbComm let the cabal rule the roost, I tried, but one editor can't stop a cabal, he can only challenge it and hope that the community gets it. Maybe someday it will. And maybe not.

When a real person says "the emperor has no clothes," with a real emperor, they toss him in jail or worse. Only if it is a child can it be said, because everyone can laugh it off. "Silly child, what does he know?" An adult who says it must be a revolutionary.

It's a classic ADHD thing, actually. Look, the emperor has no clothes. Literally, it doesn't occur to me that I shouldn't say it, can't everyone see it? Sure, I understand, but later. In this case, of course, I knew it would cause a flap, but .... can't everyone see it? Really, I could prove this in a court, but on Wikipedia, not so easy. Proof matters little if a crowd, shouting, can successfully distract.

It is possible with most of WMC's blocks to assert some reasonable basis. But he does it when he's involved. And every time someone challenges it, and points out the involvement, the cabal piles in and asserts that the block was reasonable, and there are enough of them that it can disrupt any consensus, until and unless closing admins start to look for cabal involvement, i.e., habitual affiliation between editors !voting or commenting.

The cabal has used the argument of "but he's not involved in the article, how could he be biased?"

Missing the whole point. Blocks while involved are a problem, even if the block is very reasonable.
It is such a stupid argument that I'm lucky my walls are soft. Padded, they really should be.

Only if it is an emergency, serious damage will be done if the admin waits, is it justified, and then there is an obligation to request review. Has WMC ever done this? I.e., "I had to block an editor for being boring today, is this okay?"

Wikipedia is harder on my sanity than was having five teenage kids at one time, as a single parent.

[Grep]

Mathsci, if you are a professional mathematician as you say, then why on earth are you still at Wikipedia bickering with all manner of kooks?

Give it up. Move on. You know you can't win.

Do a statistical analysis on that.

I don't think this can be the mathematical member of the team -- a Berkeley mathematician would have understood the reference to the characteristic of a field.

What was Kato saying? It's on WR that we have the kooks. Grep apparently has difficulties in eliminating one variable from the simultaneous equations x_1 + ... + x_n=0 and x_1^k + ... + x_n^k = 0. Poor Grep.

Well, I assume that that was Noll's point. Perhaps the Mathsci team could put their mighty heads together and show us how to eliminate t from x+y+z+t = 0 and x^3+y^3+z^3+t^3 over a field of characteristic 3: that is a field in which 3=0 (for example, over the finite field with three elements). [Aside for the non-mathematicians: This is of course impossible, and Mathsci's failure to realise this is what they themselves call a "howling error"] What was it that Charles Matthews said? Ah yes, Mathsci's comment here is "either ill-considered or faux naif". Of course this is all quite irrelevant to the WMC issue as this point related only to Mathsci's harassment of Noll. Perhaps Mathsci have forgotten that in our universe this AN/I case was closed as Original issue is now moot and the acrimony is now feeding on itself. How true! what a pity Mathsci didn't get to see that comment in their universe before trying to flog this very dead horse.

Meanwhile in another part of the forest, it will be recalled that TotientDragooned (T-C-L-K-R-D) was forbidden from commenting because he agreed with, and so was obviously a sock of, Arkady Renko. Totient appealed and was told by Hersfold to wait until ArbComm had ruled on the socking issue. That was two weeks ago. Funny how quickly a CheckUser can be done when it's a case of getting rid of someone (some people think that the answers seem to come back even before the check is started), and how slow it is when the results aren't coming out right

[Mathsci]

Mathsci, if you are a professional mathematician as you say, then why on earth are you still at Wikipedia bickering with all manner of kooks?

Give it up. Move on. You know you can't win.

Do a statistical analysis on that.

I don't think this can be the mathematical member of the team -- a Berkeley mathematician would have understood the reference to the characteristic of a field.

What was Kato saying? It's on WR that we have the kooks. Grep apparently has difficulties in eliminating one variable from the simultaneous equations x_1 + ... + x_n=0 and x_1^k + ... + x_n^k = 0. Poor Grep.

What was it that Charles Matthews said? Ah yes, Mathsci's comment here is "either ill-considered or faux naif".

Charles Matthews made those remarks about A.K.Nole and were addressed to him:

OK, I don't think Mathsci has been handling this in the best way in human terms, but neither do I think you have been handling this in the best way in technical terms. I picked up on your comment at Talk:Clebsch surface, as either ill-considered or faux naif - I guess it is the former, since a mathematics graduate ought to be able to see those equations as equivalent at a glance. The insertion of an example into a quantum field theory page by copy-and-paste without proper referencing and contextualisation is just annoying to everyone concerned. Homomorphisms being unital is a typical convention assumed in ring theory, usually just to avoid tedious explanations. The username thing concerns me. But let's all just move on now. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this the kind of game you play when you're losing an argument? Well, I suppose we knew you lived in a different universe - now we know it's a warped universe.

Have you ever edited wikipedia? There are plenty of articles on video games and teenage comic strips out there for you to edit. But just one small piece of advice: stay clear of mathematics - you'll make a complete fool of yourself.

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Sat 15th August 2009, 9:16am

[Grep]

Meanwhile, back at the case, I note the inspired proposal that Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) be put under mentoring. Brilliant! At 170 kilobytes of evidence, and 1,090 kilobytes of workshop, the hilarity level is consistently high. We can only hope that the proposed decision lives up to the standard of the first two volumes of this epic trilogy.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is harder on my sanity than was having five teenage kids at one time, as a single parent.

WP has a lot more than five teenage kids running amock.

In any event, it's a crazy-making culture because it embraces the single most idiotic belief and practice ever devised by humankind.

For extra credit, you and EK can team up to write the definitive encyclopedic article on Humankind's Original Logic Error (of which Wikipedia is a prime exemplar).

[Cedric]

In any event, it's a crazy-making culture because it embraces the single most idiotic belief and practice ever devised by humankind.

If you mean to reference the Wikipedia dogma that one can construct a "neutral" point of view, then I must agree. Wikipedia excels at making the sane crazy, and the crazy even crazier.

[Grep]

Poor old Hersfold doesn't seem to be doing too well at clerking this case. Going on holiday in the middle didn't help of course. The word limit on evidence got completely out of hand, for example. There's a proposal to improve case management on the table, hardly surprising, really, which Hersfold has seen fit to comment on. Not what one would expect from an impartial clerk.

[GoRight]

Meanwhile, back at the case, I note the inspired proposal that Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) be put under mentoring. Brilliant!

I'm not quite sure how you meant this but I shall take it as an actual compliment rather than simple sarcasm. I will admit that the proposal was indeed devised and suggested because of it's likely targeted effect on Raul under the circumstances.

UPDATE: After rereading this I guess I better clarify that "likely targeted effect" can be interpreted as "likely to reign in Raul's excesses while allowing him to continue his work as an administrator and checkuser". I guess trying to be terse can sometimes be a problem in terms of giving a misleading impression.

This post has been edited by GoRight: Tue 18th August 2009, 5:40am

[Mathsci]

Meanwhile, back at the case, I note the inspired proposal that Raul654 (T-C-L-K-R-D) be put under mentoring. Brilliant!

I'm not quite sure how you meant this but I shall take it as an actual compliment rather than simple sarcasm. I will admit that the proposal was indeed devised and suggested because of it's likely targeted effect on Raul under the circumstances.

UPDATE: After rereading this I guess I better clarify that "likely targeted effect" can be interpreted as "likely to reign in Raul's excesses while allowing him to continue his work as an administrator and checkuser". I guess trying to be terse can sometimes be a problem in terms of giving a misleading impression.

GoRight has just been blockedfor 48 hours for trolling on/about ArbCom pages by Hersfold.

This post has been edited by Mathsci: Tue 18th August 2009, 5:50am

[Grep]

GoRight has just been blockedfor 48 hours for trolling on/about ArbCom pages by Hersfold.

Yes, Hersfold has indeed lost control of the case. Ordering GoRight to remove part of his comment ("There is no deadline, except possibly for those who wish to turn out the lights as quickly as possible to avoid having them directed into the shadows."), but to leave in the part with compliments about the clerks is hardly impartial.

Anyway, we need to look forward. What drama comes next? The sock/meat puppetry case against WMC or the case for declerking Hersfold?

[GoRight]

GoRight has just been blockedfor 48 hours for trolling on/about ArbCom pages by Hersfold.

Sadly, true. I suppose I forced this upon him by giving him a public compliment. He does need to be seen as being impartial in such matters. Does 48 hours seem a tad excessive for such a minor comment?

This post has been edited by GoRight: Tue 18th August 2009, 7:03am

[Cla68]

GoRight has just been blockedfor 48 hours for trolling on/about ArbCom pages by Hersfold.

Sadly, true. I suppose I forced this upon him by giving him a public compliment. He does need to be seen as being impartial in such matters. Does 48 hours seem a tad excessive for such a minor comment?

Congratulations, I think all of you are turning this case into one of the biggest circuses in ArbCom history, although I'm sure some other participants in this board might take issue with that.

[Mathsci]

Congratulations, I think all of you are turning this case into one of the biggest circuses in ArbCom history, although I'm sure some other participants in this board might take issue with that.

I don't have time to dig up diffs at the moment, and apparently neither do others in this case, but from what I've observed over several years, WMC is often acerbic, truculent, and irascible when dealing with other editors, especially when they hold a different opinion than him in Global warming or other science-related articles. ... Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Splendid stuff, Cla68. You lead by example.

[Moulton]

In any event, it's a crazy-making culture because it embraces the single most idiotic belief and practice ever devised by humankind

If you mean to reference the Wikipedia dogma that one can construct a "neutral" point of view, then I must agree. Wikipedia excels at making the sane crazy, and the crazy even crazier.

Actually, I was referring to an even deeper and more profound erroneous belief, but the one you cite can be thought of as a derivative of the one I have in mind.

Congratulations, I think all of you are turning this case into one of the biggest circuses in ArbCom history, although I'm sure some other participants in this board might take issue with that.

The erroneous belief and practice I have in mind is the one that generates the biggest and bloodiest circuses in all of human history.

[InkBlot]

I don't know why, but seeing comments on Hersfeld and "impartiality" seems a lot like someone watching People's Court and complaining that Rusty the Bailiff is smirking too much.

[Cla68]

Congratulations, I think all of you are turning this case into one of the biggest circuses in ArbCom history, although I'm sure some other participants in this board might take issue with that.

I don't have time to dig up diffs at the moment, and apparently neither do others in this case, but from what I've observed over several years, WMC is often acerbic, truculent, and irascible when dealing with other editors, especially when they hold a different opinion than him in Global warming or other science-related articles. ... Cla68 (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Splendid stuff, Cla68. You lead by example.

Here you go (scroll down to WMC's last comment). There he's biting a newbie, namely, me. As you can see from his actions in this case, such as deleting or altering other editor's comments, he seems to be unable to adjust his attitude.