Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: thegoodlocust

In the past I've pointed out on-wiki how Connolley's pattern is to break his various sanctions in the most drama producing way possible. Typically, he does this by innocuously violating his sanction, which usually results in someone filing a request for enforcement against him while his typical allies rally forth with cries of, "But it didn't harm anyone!" - this sort of thing usually ends with his sanction being "clarified" (i.e. the severity is reduced).

If nobody complains then he ups the ante and violates his ban in a slightly more serious way until someone complains or until people just accept that the ban doesn't really apply to him.

Well, he has already started this tried and true tactic by removing a simple bit of vandalism from the diamond dust article. But oh noes? Is it climate related or meteorology? It has a climate section, but it isn't really about global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diamond_dust&diff=391718634&oldid=391710905

Of course, why would someone vandalize a lowly-trafficked article that hasn't been edited since June is anyone's guess. I mean, Connolley would never use a proxy or friend to vandalize a page just so he could prove a point and spite others....no....he certainly wouldn't.

I guess we'll see what Arbcom's definition of "broadly construed" means.

Posted by: Shalom

You're a dumbass. First, the article is not directly related to global warming, not even "broadly construed." Obviously, everything relates to global warming in some way because if our ancestors did not live to create our own generation, and if not for scientific discoveries etc. etc. there would be no global warming. Ice crystals in the air is not related to global warming. Furthermore, ArbCom often allows topic-banned editors to remove simple vandalism. Perhaps Connolley didn't receive that exemption, but I remember seeing it in a different case.

Posted by: thegoodlocust

As I said, it is a process, he'll find the most drama producing way possible to violate his sanction as he has done every single time he's been sanctioned. I suggest you reread what I wrote since you seem to have major reading difficulties.

And yes, ice crystals in the air could impact climate through their albedo just like clouds do. It is probably an immeasurably small impact, but who knows?

Posted by: alan323

So a man has removed 'also they are very UGLYYY' slur in an article concerning ice.

An unprecedented event in the long history of wikipedia.

Posted by: Abd

Bad idea, Goodlocust. Don't. They did stuff to me, wikilawyering my bans into this and that, not expected by me, but they had better excuses than what you came up with.

If he starts fixing vandalism on global warming articles, maybe something could be said about it, but, my view has been with his, long ago, that harmless edits, unless they rise to a level of nuisance for ban enforcement, should never result in a block. He only changed his mind when I was the one making the edit....

Posted by: thegoodlocust

Oh I'm not going to file a formal complaint. The point of this, of pointing out what he does, is to get him to stop it himself or to inform others of the pattern in order to head off his plan before it comes to fruition. He really is quite predictable.

As I said, I've pointed this pattern of his out several times in the past when he has implemented the same tactics - either people will wake up and quit being manipulated or they won't. There isn't much I can do if people want to be manipulated by a nutter.

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

Goodlocust's warning seems plausible to me.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Everyone on Wikipedia has already consented to being manipulated by nutters.

Posted by: Lar

Here too. And in real life.

We're all bozos on this bus.

(speaking of bozos, the WSJ mangles the case facts badly... http://www.webcitation.org/5tdzzTTyQ (oops, apparently webcite links don't work for the WSJ?) http://%5bhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560630778483558.html?mod=rss_opinion_main ... may not work.

(edited again! Try this one... the "transparent" (but very long!) WebCite® URL:

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle_email%2FSB10001424052702304410504575560630778483558-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwMTEyNDEyWj.html&date=2010-10-21 )

I think that one will work indef, not sure )

Posted by: Abd

Warning: this is long. It turns to Cold fusion as an example of factional misbehavior tightly related to the Climate Change situation, as an example, easily seen in article text, how the neutrality of the project has been -- and remains -- warped. An abstract is given from a recently-published review in a highly reputable mainstream journal which would make a fair lede for the article, perhaps with the addition of whatever contrary source could be found (it would have to be an historical note, there is no recent reliable source contradicting this, on an equivalent level of quality). But that edit would not survive for a day, no would any compromise be allowed. Unless something changes.

I didn't think it was terribly mangled, for a newspaper.

They didn't mention that the other side got tromped on also, including Lar, who was the equivalent of me, this time around, the only difference, really, being that I wasn't an admin/steward/ombudsman. Lar asserted, essentially, the same thing I'd asserted and that I was banned for. (The MYOB ban.)

What ArbComm has consistently failed to notice is that there is a difference between ordinary POV-pushing and POV-pushing by administrators and by factions that include administrators. Instead of recognizing that administrative bias is a larger problem, requiring bolder solutions, than that of ordinary editors, it tends -- greatly -- to sanction ordinary editors before admins. The "admins" are more "valuable."

They are, in a way, of course. But that value is not fundamental to the mission of Wikipedia, a *neutral* encyclopedia. Banning entire factions, which is what can happen, is about guaranteed to warp the project.

Rather, solutions that channel factional behavior into constructive negotiations, and that only ban people who will not communicate within boundaries, and only banning to the minimum necessary for reasonable order, are what have long been needed. I would not have totally banned any of these editors from Climate change; not initially, in any case. I'd have simply required them to follow COI rules with respect to the topic, and civility policy. The cabal editors are now complaining about experts having been excluded. While turnabout is fair play -- this is what they did and supported -- it's a terrible idea for the neutrality of the project. Expert participation *for advice* is crucial. "Expert" should include anyone with a serious involvement with the field, which would include amateurs, and experts develop strong POVs, it goes with the territory.

ArbComm has not realized the depth of damage that was caused -- and which *continues* to be caused, by the factionalism that the Global Warming cabal represented. It was broader than global warming, and it infected the defacto ways in which Wikipedia operates, making knee-jerk decisions by "neutral admins," based on what ultimately may be content judgments or mind-reading, assumptions about the roots of behavior, the norm. The Cabal had no patience for negotiation, no understanding of how to incorporate opposing views and find truly balanced, consensus text.

And it's still going on.

It's little realized that my ban from cold fusion and my MYOB ban were a consequence of my intervention at Global warming, which started with RfC/GoRight, where I noticed a radically offensive attack on GoRight, and investigated and reported, probably staving off his site ban for a year or more. This was all about Global warming, and I tried to edit that article for a time, and I found that every text was scrutinized by a consistent group of editors for "whitewashing," as one term that was used. Clarifying the meaning of terms used in the conclusions of the IPCC, which very precisely defined the certainty of its conclusions, was prohibited, "too much detail," "likely to confuse readers." Sure. The truth always is more complex than a simplistic polemic. Using the terms without clarification would lead readers to assume the ordinary meanings, not the special ones specified, which caused an impression of stronger conclusions than were actually made by the panel. That's what these editors wanted. They wanted polemic to convince readers of their position. It was utterly impossible to work on that article.

For lesser behavior, other editors were site-banned.

And WMC predicted that I'd be banned, when I pointed out an instance of his abuse of tools, and worked to ensure it.

I'm again banned from cold fusion, "discretionary sanctions," based on a highly selective examination of editorial behavior. I was only editing Talk, and the usual suspects showed up, removing reliably sourced text, preventing even discussion of it, and, of course, JzG showed up at AN to suggest what he'd suggested for others before. Ban.

Admins are accustomed to looking at a situation where a number of editors are upset with the behavior of one, and the assumption is very, very easy and strong that the problem is the single editor. If we look at the overall history of cold fusion, though, as I'm starting to do at netknowledge.org, it is many editors who have attempted to bring the article into compliance with the policies and guidelines, as clarified by RfAr/Fringe science, opposed by a consistent few, backed by the political clout of some admins. That arbitration banned ScienceApologist for three months from all fringe science topics. He's back, and responding to him was a major factor in my latest ban. His behavior is not improved from before, it is worse. I'd worked with him on occasion, and his collaborative side has totally disappeared.

I saw GoRight as an editor, a global warming skeptic, who was quite willing to compromise, to respect the truth that global warming was a general scientific consensus, but who also was not willing to tolerate the unfair attacks on skeptics, the smearing of them in biographies, and the suppression of the level of scientific dissent that exists. I never agreed with GoRight on his views, but minority views are extremely important in maintaining project neutrality. GoRight was site-banned, partly for defending me.

What happened at Global warming was quite complex, I can show the case at Cold fusion much more easily, because it is a situation where the true scientific consensus (the opinion of those most informed about a field, specifically the peer-reviewers at mainstream scientific journals, and expert panels convened to review a topic) has flipped over the last five years. There is now a large body of recently published review of the field. It is heavily contradictory to the sense of the cold fusion article at present. The article does contain some shreds of balance, constantly under threat of removal, and, indeed, they have been slipping away.

Having largely given up on Wikipedia, I did some editing of a paper being submitted to a journal. I did not know what journal it was, but the author had been quite friendly and supportive of the research I myself have taken up. He'd written a review of the strongest evidence that fusion is taking place in these experiments, and he asked me to comment on it. I did, and he submitted it. He then told me that he'd been asked to, instead, write a review of the entire field, which he did, and he again asked for comment and suggestions. I made them, and they were incorporated. And then the article was accepted and he told me that this was for Naturwissenschaften. And it was published last month. This was brought to the attention of editors at Cold fusion, and it was fascinating to see the response. I took the review to RSN and the consensus of neutral editors there was that this was clearly strong RS. But, of course, the pseudoskeptics found every excuse to attack it.

They are so busy making sure that no "fringe" nonsense gets in the article that they don't notice that this really isn't fringe any more. (The real operating definition of fringe for these people is "something that I think is nonsense.") It has not qualified as fringe for about five years, but there is no recent reliable source that says "fringe" or "not fringe."

Nevertheless, from the treatment of the topic, which is mixed, this is clearly "emerging science," still controversial. There is inertia, where someone writes something and uses cold fusion as an example of "pathological science," it's not really about cold fusion but about the author's ideas, these authors have not researched cold fusion itself, they use and repeat ideas that were common ten to twenty years ago, ideas that may have been true then (such as "never replicated," as to early 1989).

Just for fun, here is the abstract from the review. I was credited in the article itself. There is an available http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEstatusofcoa.pdf I'm credited, which is way better than a barnstar....

The phenomenon called cold fusion has been studied for the last 21 years since its discovery by Profs. Fleischmann and Pons in 1989. The discovery was met with considerable skepticism, but supporting evidence has accumulated, plausible theories have been suggested, and research is continuing in at least eight countries. This paper provides a brief overview of the major discoveries and some of the attempts at an explanation. The evidence supports the claim that a nuclear reaction between deuterons to produce helium can occur in special materials without application of high energy. This reaction is found to produce clean energy at potentially useful levels without the harmful byproducts normally associated with a nuclear process. Various requirements of a model are examined.

This review covers the critical heat/helium ratio, which is, by far, the strongest basis for concluding that fusion is taking place. These reactions are producing helium. It only takes a tiny bit of helium to account for the excess heat found, and since helium occurs naturally in the air, at levels higher than what the experiments produce, it was easy to dismiss the reports as due to leakage. However, some very careful work has been done, and "leakage" is untenable as an explanation. And there isn't any other explanation except a nuclear process, contamination of materials with helium has also been ruled out.

The WP article has, on the relationship of heat and helium, only a blatant error drawn from the summary of a bureaucrat who misread the documents provided, a claim that 5 out of 16 electrolytic cells that were producing heat were also found to have produced helium. The error was pointed out on Talk cold fusion more than a year ago. Edits that substituted reliably sourced information on this were reverted by the pseudoskeptics. It was pointed out again, recently, on Talk, by me. I could no longer edit the article, not because of a ban, but because of COI.

Editor Kirk shanahan, a long-time critic of cold fusion, agreed that part of the statement in the article was an error, but asserted that the "5/16 heat producing" part was correct. When I pointed out precisely the error, that this was really only 5 out of an unknown number producing heat (from other evidence it was probably five cells!), heat data had been given for only one of the 16 cells, and some of those cells, probably 8, had been control cells with hydrogen -- no heat, no helium -- he simply stopped responding. And nothing has been changed. And Hipocrite and others changed the Talk page archiving to very fast, so almost all the unresolved discussion has disappeared from the active Talk page.

The article still has the blatant error, easily verifiable as such, that, if true, could be evidence against fusion, not for it. The reality is that, almost without exception, when a cell produces excess heat, enough to create measurable helium, and if helium is measured, it correlates by presence and by quantity, with the measured excess heat. Storms bases this on results from twelve research groups, and four of those reports were detailed enough to use as a basis for relative accurate estimate of 25 +/- 5 MeV/He-4, which can be compared with the theoretical value for deuterium fusion of 23.8 MeV/He-4.

A much looser correlation was called "spectacular" by Huizenga, dedicated skeptic, in 1994. That's reliable source, by the way. There is enough material in solid, reliable source for, probably, dozens of articles relating to cold fusion. It would require forking. "POV forks," they said when it was done, thus forcing everything into one article and then creating an appearance of "imbalance" whenever detail was inserted.

It has almost all been excluded. That pile includes peer-reviewed secondary source reviews, this is not new with the recent Storms review, there have been many, in mainstream journals. There are many fascinating details of the history, easily sourced, all missing. The pseudoskeptics have reduced what Huizenga called -- it's in his book title -- the "scientific fiasco of the century," and it probably was that, especially with what we know now, to a very shallow and cherry-picked summary.

This is not "recentism." The basic work on heat/helium was known and noticed more than fifteen years ago.

For my efforts I was banned again. The article remains erroneous on the 5/16 thing. There are two or three editors who would want to see it improved, but they are mostly toothless, timid. They argue on Talk, making only a few edits and doing nothing when reverted. ArbComm has banned, or allowed the continuation of a ban, on every editor who was or who became expert on this topic, and most importantly, banned the only two editors who understood three things: the topic, the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, and how to escalate discussion when needed to get a sane decision when parties involved in local decisions will not negotiate consensus. Pcarbonn and myself.

Multiply this by many editors and wider interest, you get the Climate Change mess. Many of the same pseudoskeptical editors are involved in both. I was banned by WMC on the excuse of conflict with Hipocrite, now climate change banned. Verbal was very involved at Cold fusion. Other CF pseudoskeptical editors escaped sanctions, because they only argued before ArbComm defending WMC et al, but hadn't been involved in the article editing. I attempted to identify this faction to ArbComm, it ignored the evidence and reprimanded me for trying. I wasn't claiming misbehavior, per se, but the effect of factional affiliation and mutual involvement, it was necessary to see this to understand why so many editors would pile into RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley to complain about me.

This is the House that ArbComm Built, by failing to represent and defend the best of Wikipedia, against the forces of factionalism and the shallow, impatient, incautious ignorance behind that.

In real life, below is what is happening with Cold fusion, aside from my own research, which is coming right along, I expect I will be publishing early next year. One way or another!

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/oct/09/cold-science-heats-up/
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/oct/11/cold-fusion/

In the reader comments there, an anonymous and clearly obsessed writer shows up, "Kemosabe." From lots of clues, I infer that this is very likely ScienceApologist. (Some in the field think it is Kirk shanahan, but SA would have read, quite likely, at one point or other, all of Kirk's arguments. The style is different from Kirk, and there is mention of homeopathy and other special interests of SA, i.e., Joshua Schroeder, an astronomy grad student at Columbia University and former community college physics instructor.)

Someone not familiar with the Wikipedia debate would have been unlikely to mention that Storms is the cold fusion (LENR) editor at Naturwissenschaften, that was not very widely known, using this as a reason to deprecate the review. I found that at newenergytimes.com; the appointment was in December, 2009, and, as soon as I saw it, I'd mentioned it on Talk:Cold fusion.

NW had started publishing articles on cold fusion in 2005, and the best in the field started submitting there, so they needed an editor familiar with the topic. But, contrary to what both Kemosabe and ScienceApologist have contended, he did not review his own paper, it was independently reviewed, i.e., what one would expect at a journal like this. It was also a solicited paper, thus representing a high-level editorial decision. Springer-Verlag, the second-largest scientific publisher in the world, is staking its reputation on cold fusion, this review can't be missed, it was on the first page of the September issue of the journal.

Their major competitor is Elsevier, which has also been publishing papers in the field for some years.

This SA argument is typical of the mud that would routinely be tossed by cabal editors to impeach sources that they didn't like. It actually has the opposite implications: why is a mainstream journal appointing a LENR editor? Is that done for fringe topics?

Posted by: It's the blimp, Frank

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/. Since Dr. Lewis is being compared to Martin Luther, will SlimVirgin be gunning for him at Wikipedia as a forerunner of Nazism?

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

You have two different urls archived. The short form of the second one works fine.
http://www.webcitation.org/5te2VunZs


Go eat your wheaties.

Posted by: thegoodlocust

Well, it seems like my prediction has been coming at least partially true. It looks like he has been posting diffs for his followers to go "fix" certain things - someone had the audacity to call climate models "estimates" which was clearly beyond the pale.

Surprisingly he was blocked, which has caused much wailing and lamentation among his followers and their various sockpuppets.

Now, they are http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&oldid=393277819#Off-wiki_meatpuppetry_encouraged_by_arbcom.21_Transparency_decried_as_disruptive.21 among themselves or a private wiki in order to coordinate their activity since they can't track William's contrib history.

The amusing thing is that this has almost certainly already been going on according to some of their off and on-wiki comments, but now they can feel more justified about breaking the rules because of the enormous tragedy that has befallen their little clique. I suppose all of those "cabal approved" stamps they place on their userpages can't really be assumed to be a joke by even the densest of folk at this point.

So the question is, will the Arbs realize their mistake in not topic banning the various personalities discussing coordinating their meatpuppetry offwik? Will some admin under the climate change thingamajig setup by ArbCom rectify that oversight? Are stars merely pinholes in the curtain of night?

Who knows.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Posted by: Peter Damian

Expect visitors.

Posted by: Cla68

I'm sure there are exceptions, but the Wikipedia editors I've observed who complain about WR the loudest are usually the ones busily engaged in trying to get one over on Wikipedia. Perhaps one of the reasons that most of those editors don't try to come here and argue their cases is because they know that the BS tolerance levels are much lower here than on Wikipedia.

Posted by: SirFozzie

Without getting into the rest of it, (I'm recused from that case)...

TGL, would the phrase BADSITES mean anything to you?

Posted by: thegoodlocust

Is that the list of websites on wikipedia's blacklist? If not then no, it doesn't mean anything to me.

Posted by: Cla68

Hohboy, have you got some extensive and interesting reading ahead of you! I would suggest typing BADSITES into WR's search function then setting aside a few hours to peruse the material at your leisure.

Posted by: Abd

I was reading an ArbComm case from 2006, Blu Aardvark, and there were all these references to Wikipediareview.com where they had munged the URL because, I'm sure, at that time the blacklist prohibited adding any links to wikipediareview.com....

The whole read was thoroughly depressing. Raul654 at this point was being dinged for unblocking Blu Aardvark. Was this the Raul654 that I knew? WTF? Is nothing sacred?

Posted by: Cla68

The love/hate relationship between WP and WR has been one of the most interesting and long-running sagas in WP's history.

By the way, SirFozzie, as you're discovering, you can't reason http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris&curid=27148620&diff=393327623&oldid=393323973. Since they feel their cause is just and righteous, they can't tolerate contrary opinions and they hate to lose arguments.

Posted by: ATren

Take a look at that thread, and you will find a "who's who" of editors whom the committee refused to sanction despite ample evidence presented of disruption: Boris, Guettarda, ScienceApologist, Stephan Schulz. All joking about their intention to meat-puppet to get around the sanctions.

Many of these same editors have crusaded against any new editor who happened to oppose them in their Wiki-activism, usually starting with Scibaby sock accusations, and when that failed, calling them meat-puppets. How hypocritical of them.

But they don't care, and the committee doesn't care, because dammit, these editors are using Wikipedia to push a noble cause! Screw policy, screw reliable sources, we have a planet to save! Think of the children!


(And BTW, I am not skeptical of science change; I believe it is a genuine concern, but turning Wikipedia into a group blog, where you trash political opponents and act like arrogant buffoons, is not at all helpful to conveying that concern. They throw gasoline on the fire and then wonder why they're feeling so much heat. But don't tell that to the activists, they're too busy saving the world by digging up dirt on people.)

Posted by: Abd

Once upon a time, I'd have intervened to argue that WMC should not be blocked for pointing to issues on his own talk page. Bad idea. If someone "takes orders from him" then that person can and should be sanctioned, if what they do is improper. However, WMC and his friends managed to get an MYOB ban for me. I'd be blocked for intervening.

It's delicious, in fact. Yeah, bad policy, poor ArbComm decisions, shallow solutions, etc. But if it's going to be bad, at least Bad is an equal opportunity employer. What they sow, they reap. Turnabout is fair play, etc.

Meanwhile, wolves that were previously identified are roaming free, eating the chickens while everyone is paying attention to WMC, who has been defanged.

Wikipedia. The most visited time-waster on the planet. Somewhat useful if you don't try to edit it.

Posted by: ATren

Indeed, Boris has been quite agitated since they removed his bestest buddy. Of course, in a rational decision, Boris would have been removed too, but the activist arbs (Shell and Roger, mainly) would have none of that. Someone had to remain to do WMC's dirty work.

Posted by: Cla68

Actually, I believe the Committee topic banned the editors who argued the most with each other on the case talk pages or got caught up in edit wars while the case was ongoing. That would definitely include me, as I had a little fun conducting a couple of experiments showing the Committee during the case exactly what it was like trying to edit a CC article being guarded by dedicated activists. I think the Committee is already starting to realize that they probably should have added a few more names to the topic banned list, but it doesn't matter, I guess, as long as the biting newbies and BLP abuses stop.

Posted by: ATren

Raul654 was like Jeckyll and Hyde: outside of political and environmental topics he was pretty reasonable, but get him near a climate change article and he turned into a foaming-at-the-mouth activist. I can remember in an arb case (he was an arb at one time, imagine that!) he cited Ralph Nader's opinion as unqualified fact. It was pretty shocking to see that coming from an arb during a case.

Posted by: Abd

These are roughly the same group as I confronted as the "cabal" in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley. Notice Crohnie. Why did I include her in my cabal list? If anyone looked at the cabal evidence, they'd see. Serious attempts were made to delete that evidence, by the way, some of it continued until recently, by Verbal.

ArbComm refused to accept it when I said that asserting cabal affiliation was not an accusation of misbehavior, in itself. They insisted on mind-reading me, and then sanctioning me for what they imagined I meant. I meant what I wrote, and I was explicit, and I substantiated what I wrote.

What an effing waste of time! I've got several crackerjack ArbComm cases to raise, and I find it difficult to care enough.

But my point here is that the community abandoned me at that point. Support for sane investigation and report disappeared. Too much trouble to read it. Someone who does that much work is not to be trusted.
You mean that when the tables are turned, they act like the people they condemned? How shocking!
And if we don't keep those fringe lunatics out, generations of people will be misled. They will start buying homeopathic remedies. They will buy a gas-guzzler. They will spend their life savings on developing cold fusion research kits. We have to protect them from themselves, by making sure that everything they read is Cabal Approved.

If we could, we'd burn them at the stake, For Their Own Good.
Atren was one of the sane voices at RfC/GoRight, which is where I first confronted the cabal.

What I saw was that he always held back, didn't fully commit, was a moderate. But it finally became too much, he couldn't remain as silent as he'd been. It all became entirely too obvious to him.

He can, I'm sure, tell his own story better than I. But all of this was years too late.

The early Wikipedians punted, apparently believing that the community would be able to resolve the process difficulties later, ad hoc, as they came up. Nope. Instead of building process and precedent, various synonyms for "let's not talk about this, it's too hard" became common wisdom, and, gradually, the tumbrels come for those previously in power, as they offend the mob. It's an old story. Democracy without deliberation and all the protections developed over the centuries, judgment without wisdom, management without depth.

Posted by: thegoodlocust

No, I don't think that is quite accurate. Viriditas, for example, was easily the most argumentative person on the PD page and was quite shrill at times. ScienceApologist has several examples of rather atrocious behavior and statements - including stating the unstated policy of the climate cabal, which was that they intentionally engage in turborevisionism in the hope that their opponents will mess up and break 3rr.

My personal opinion is that ArbCom read tea leaves to determine sanctions when a ouija board would've been much more accurate.

Posted by: ATren

Actually, no, not in my case. I hardly edited the case pages, and the only "edit war" I got involved in was a blatant BLP violation, and I had one revert in that "war". That was the one where NuclearWarfare blocked Marknutley for removing a BLP link to a smear job some professor posted on his university web page.

In fact, I had been almost completely inactive in the topic area and on the arb case page for at least 1-2 months when they posted my findings.

I guess it was my fault for taking the arbs at their word. At the beginning of the case they asked editors to step back, and I did so because I (naively) believed they would act responsibly. But no: in my absence, they went digging for marginally disruptive diffs from 6 months earlier, completely ignored their contexts, and used them to manufacture an absurdly weak finding against me, which got rubber-stamped by everyone but Newyorkbrad. Then when I confronted them with clear evidence that my actions were justified, they ignored me. I have no respect for any of them anymore (not including CHL, NYB or SF).

Not their finest hour. But then, I guess they don't have many fine hours... ;-)

Posted by: Abd

It's the system, Atren. I fosters and encourages poor decision-making. I'm tired of writing about it. The system does not seek self-improvement.

When I came across RfC/GoRight, I saw GoRight trying to wikilawyer the RfC into being deleted. He was technically correct, but substance was being ignored. So I fixed it, allowing time to fix Raul654's oversight -- he'd failed to certify the RfC before a break.

Then I read the thing and was horrifed. It was clearly a POV hit job. I investigated and reported my results, and possibly saved GoRight from an early wiki demise.

I was unusual. I'd investigate a situation in depth and report, even though I had no dog in the race, and, in fact, on general POV, I was more with the cabal. That general agreement, across the editorial population and especially the administrative population, combined with a too-common lack of understanding of the importance of consensus -- genuine consensus -- to neutrality, is part of what allowed the cabal to get away with their crap for so long.

Where are those investigators? The system seems to depend on POV-pushers to bring problems to light. Who else has the patience to negotiate the labyrinth? Long ago, I suggested that ArbComm appoint *investigators.* Give them admin tools, to be used only for investigation (these investigators would be directly responsible to ArbComm, and possibly they might be responsible to individual arbitrators, i.e., arbs would individually create them.

There are many possible proposals that could be developed. But the system resists change, it is hostile to it. Off-wiki collaboration is another possible solution. For that to work would require a series of changes in how decisions are made. Supposedly votes don't count, what counts is arguments. If that were true, one would want to make sure that the best arguments are found and presented. How is that supposed to happen without "canvassing"? If votes didn't count, why is it that canvassing is even an issue?

Because votes count. Wikipedia has a series of self-deceptions enshrined in the guidelines.

Without genuine consensus process the fundamental goal of neutrality is unattainable, because the only reliable sign of neutrality is genuine consensus. Perfect consensus may not be reachable, so we may never be certain of neutrality, but when Jimbo wrote on neutrality and consensus in the early days, he did understand that neutral text would be satisfactory to people of all points of view. If not to people who don't want neutrality, who want to use the project to promote their ideas and to exclude other ideas.

The only way to detect these people for sure is to have true consensus process. In that process, it becomes obvious who isn't interested in a neutral conclusion. But it takes care, and it takes skill, so, I've also recommended the identification and training of a class of facilitators, who would actively assist the negotiation of consensus. These facilitators, if a conflict cannot be resolved, would have created a record of the negotiations that would be usable in higher-level decision-making process.

ArbComm supposedly attempts to avoid making content decisions, but they effectively do it all the time. If it seems to them that an editor is promoting a fringe POV, they will sanction that editor before they will sanction someone who seems to be "defending" the majority POV. And they will judge the majority POV by their own POV.

I've seen this up close and personal in my own case, but it's common in others. It's a mess, and I see no signs of a solution developing. ArbComm could have addressed the problem of a "faction" in my case, instead, they sanctioned me for raising the issue. Same people, basically, as the global warming cabal. The main evidence I presented re WMC and the cabal was about his ownership, with his use of the first person plural, with regard to the Global warming article.

And these people have, in plenty of cases, spat on ArbComm decisions, they clearly had no respect for ArbComm. But they were -- and most remain -- administrators. Openly defying ArbComm, and ArbComm doesn't do a thing about it unless someone raises a case. And what's it like to raise a case against one of these admins, if you aren't an admin? Care to ask me?

I *won.* I was right. I proved it. They desysopped WMC. And ... I was still banned. ArbComm has a profound distrust of anyone who would put in so much work. The person must be imbalanced. If they weren't imbalanced, they would just go away, why the big fuss? I know how these people think, I've seen this on-line for over twenty years. There are only a few exceptions. And they seem to be getting rarer, as they realize what an effing waste of time the whole thing is.

Basic lesson for future generations working in Wikipedia II: make sure it's efficient. Pushing boulders up the mountain over and over, which the present system design requires, is guaranteed to fail, long-term. Build content, and build consensus. Real consensus process is always open to revision, it merely creates a kind of inertia once consensus is established. A documented consensus process creates paths for the revision of consensus. And I've explained this so many times it's silly. The cabal opposed the very idea of consensus, they considered it preposterous, and they opposed recusal policy, openly. On the ArbComm pages. When I saw that happening with no comment or response from ArbComm, I knew that the chances of any sane process from ArbComm was about nil.

Bottom line, they are hostage to the concept of the administrative core as "essential volunteers," not to be offended. For a long time, Raul654 was considered essential as a checkuser because who else knew so much about Scibaby? That Raul654 had *created* the Scibaby affair, with WMC, simply was not on their radar, all they knew was that Scibaby had created many hundreds of sock puppets, and that was Bad, and Must Be Stopped.

But it can't be stopped! When you abuse people, some of them will hate you so much that they will spend years tweaking your nose. Some level of this might happen with legitimate protection of the project, but ... they made it much worse than it needed to be.

To favor the administrative core, they abandoned the general editors. Even highly productive editors, like PHG, Per Honor et Gloria now, were dinged and harassed if they came into conflict with an Administrator. God forbid that such an editor, with 50,000 edits, might make a mistake and not properly represent what was in a source.

I see all the time misrepresentation of sources from editors favored and coddled by the cabal.... nothing is done about it, in most cases.

Posted by: The Wordsmith

Boris seems to be the most reasonable member of GWCabal; I've compromised with him fruitfully more than once. A few others probably should have been dinged, and they will eventually get caught up in discretionary sanctions.

The community has become fed up, and given a clear mandate to the Arbcom Enforcement bunch to be as tough and draconian as necessary. To quote from the Durova decision, "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project."

Posted by: Doc glasgow

The problem is that others believe:

"In cases where all reasonable attempts to control despoliation have failed, the Campaigners may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the planet."

Posted by: Cla68

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Count_Iblis&curid=1242448&diff=394995771&oldid=394976095

Posted by: JohnA

Just when I think Bill Connelley can't get any worse, he promptly gets even worse.

He really, really can't help himself. The urge to control history (or at least his purblind view of it) is much too strong.

Posted by: Abd

J. Johnson http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=next&oldid=395035712 to WMC talk.

Again and again, I've seen ArbComm sanction an editor, based on BS, ArbComm misunderstanding, and then when the editor, big surprise, is not contrite, they then throw the book at the editor for not reforming. It happens on all sides, it's a systemic defect, ArbComm strongly dislikes re-examining old decisions, it is as if they were written in stone.

That could be fixed, it actually would not be difficult. Any arbitrator could move reconsideration (short term) or rescind, and, if seconded, that could be discussed. Standard deliberative process. I won't describe the standard rules, but they are designed to avoid beating dead horses, while still allowing errors to be corrected.

WMC, as far as I've seen, has not gotten worse. I'd been watching his Talk since sometime in 2008. One of the things I liked about WMC was that he was frank and open. He did not understand the long-term consequences of what he was doing, but that's an entirely different problem. The cabal loved him for what he was doing then, and for what he has continued to do. They egged him on, and acted vigorously to stop any effort to restrain him.

It was all visible before, to anyone who actually took the time to look. Very few do that, and especially very few arbitrators: they wait for someone else to digest the evidence for them and to spit it out, and they follow the evidence that they like the most. In RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolly, the arbitrators accepted -- and cited as the reason for my topic ban -- some evidence presented against me that actually was not about me at all; it was the presenting editors statement to ArbComm in RfAr/Fringe science, in which the editor argued for the exact opposite of the ultimate ruling on that case. This was before I ever became involved.

And what was argued there was blatantly misleading, to boot.

I pointed this out before the case closed. ArbComm paid no attention at all, I don't think a single arbitrator responded to the comment.

WMC is getting a raw deal; however, on the other hand, he helped to serve up a raw deal to many, many editors over the years.

Wiki traditions? They were thrown in the trash long ago. Wikipedia punishes.

Posted by: Milton Roe

I saw somebody not long ago asserting that ArbComm just arbitrates, they don't judge. And don't punish. I think these things both need to be added to WP:NOT, that long list of incredibly ridiculous lies that the WP:FAITHFUL are all supposed to pay lip service to.

Posted by: Doc glasgow

Arbcom is inaptly named. It adjudicates by necessity - indeed it is set up as a classic disciplinary body.

Posted by: Kelly Martin

Except that disciplinary bodies classically conduct their business in private, to avoid unduly spreading scandal.

Posted by: Lar

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rlevse&diff=prev&oldid=394853392. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Count_Iblis&diff=prev&oldid=394976095 ...


But ya, he does sometimes act reasonably.

Posted by: ATren

Do you now understand why nobody tries to oppose this faction? Within minutes of your action, you're attacked by the same 4 or 5 editors who have been defending each other for years, including 2 whom arbcom refused to sanction despite the fact that they attacked Lar for months.

Welcome to the climate change topic, where arbs had an opportunity to take out the real offenders but instead wimped out and just removed people like me, JWB and Cla68 who were trying to help. But at least it's for a good cause, right?

Posted by: thegoodlocust

Personally I was rather intrigued that Raul decided to jump in with his main account. I suppose he expects people have forgotten his role in the CC articles and now he can come in to fill the "leadership" role William will (or rather should) be leaving.

On a side note, Kirill http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification&diff=prev&oldid=396442421#Statement_by_your_TheGoodLocust - he was not amused? It really is a shame, because humor is the natural response to absurdity.

I must admit I do get a great deal of satisfaction not only telling them exactly what the cabal will do, but what solutions would prevent future problems. They are full of themselves, many bodies of this sort are like this, and even when repeatedly shown solutions from the same sources that would've prevented problems they don't have the capacity to see past their prejudices in order to implement them.

I'd run for that accursed body myself, but I doubt I have enough article edits to meet the minimum requirements.

Posted by: Abd

ArbComm seems to operate under a naive assumption that if the players in a conflict would just follow dispute resolution process, all would be well. Therefore if there is a conflict, there is a level of assumption that both parties must be at fault. This is combined with an assumption that "major contributors" may be flawed, but they are valuable and to be encouraged to continue with Wikipedia, where as an "outsider" is just going to continue to make trouble

"Major contributors" means "someone I've worked with or who thinks like me."

This veil can be penetrated, on occasion, but with great hazard. People don't like their assumptions being challenged. This is why standard, plain vanilla, deliberative process, like Robert's Rules of Order, has heavy protection for minorities (at least that is the design. Any structure can be abused. So far. I think I've designed one where abuse would be very difficult, but ... it's unproven.)

It's classic: the cabal will find some defect that can be asserted about the actions of an inconvenient editor or administrator. It doesn't matter what they or their people did yesterday that may have been similar or worse. All that matters is the impression they can create in the immediate discussion.

Rummaging around through Hipocrite's checkered and apparently deliberately confused history (way more socks admitted and proven than Hipocrite lets on), I came acrosshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Statement_by_iantresman

I use the term "cabal" loosely. It refers to a constellation of editors, and, one might note, constellations in the sky are appearance, starts that, from the earth, appear to have a certain position. They are typically at vast distances from each other. However, a "constellation of editors" is a set of editors who act according to some roughly consistent agenda, and whose social function is understood better through recognizing this. If editor A and admin B consistently support each other, and editor A gets into conflict with editor C, admin B may be acting while involved if the admin, with tools, supports A by warning and blocking C.

Because there is no clear policy established about this, I did not seek the desysopping of such, only that ArbComm recognize the problem and perhaps issue warnings. However, ArbComm treated my request as an effort to assert my POV, which is how it was framed by the cabal.

I see that Iantresman, very clearly, laid out the problem, which he called pseudoskepticism. That's not a complete description, but it's accurate. Real skepticism is not attached to the status quo, it is skeptical of it as well. Pseudoskepticism is skeptical only of what is seen as deviant, fringe. On Wikipedia, pseudoskpeticism presents itself as Majority POV pushing, normally. MPOV pushing is recognized by the community in general, when it becomes focused on an issue, as a problem, and ArbComm has, in theory, addressed it, most clearly, as I recall, in RfAr/Fringe science. However, good theory accomplishes nothing if there is no enforcement, and Wikipedia depends on "victims" for enforcement, i.e, for the victims to complain. But victims are usually themselves associated, or can be associated, with a minority PPOV, in this case. So they are vulnerable to charges of minority POV-pushing. Call it mPOV to distinguish it from MPOV.

I do not know the specifics of Iantresman's history, but from the RfAr, I would assume that he took the position that if facts are found in reliable sources, they belong in the project, somewhere (unless they are completely redundant). The MPOV-pushers consistently acted to exclude "fringe" positions, even if they are covered in reliable sources. I saw this when I attempted to work on Global warming, which I'd become aware of through the early cabal attempts to ban GoRight (T-C-L-K-R-D) . GoRight had made mistakes, which were amply and thoroughly and redundantly documented, in a highly biased and uncivil way, in RfC/GoRight. GoRight eventually joined a long list of victims of the cabal, and this affair will not be finished until all those victims are identified and invited to rejoin the community, until unjust and unfair topic bans are lifted.

Many of these users will require some kind of support, if they decide to return. "Support" would mean that when they make mistakes, they have someone who has their interests and wikisurvival at heart, but who will also stop them from going to far toward their own POVs. Having a POV is not an offense, and arguing for the POV should not be an offense, provided that the argument stays within behavioral guidelines. To the cabal, that an editor argued for a minority POV was prima facie evidence that they should be banned, and it was often the only alleged offense, that's what I saw in the last ban of Pcarbonn, engineered by JzG, who essentially lied to the community in his request at AN.

Back to the original topic, I followed DR process, quite carefully. My present ban actually resulted from due process action on my part, an element in it was my delisting request at the meta blacklist page, it was cited by the banning admin. That request was in pursuit of the original ArbComm decision at RfAr/Abd and JzG. And it was successful, in spite of attack there by JzG. Wikipedia shoots the messengers.

It frequently shoots them even when it, in theory, agrees with the message. Atren is topic banned as a result of his long, patient, advocacy of sanity in the global warming field.

To the cabal, every action is political, they project their own habits on others, which is not surprising. So if an admin blocks WMC and Hipocrite, as happened here, but does not block Atren, they will attack the admin. There was, however, a difference between the RfA votes of WMC/Hipocrite and that of Atren. Atren's vote was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sphilbrick#Oppose
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sphilbrick#Oppose
Atren's comment did not raise a controversy or assert a position in a battle, both WMC's and Hipocrite's did, and the pussy-footing continued in the discussion on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard.

Regardless of intention, the latter two comments were actually disruptive. Some of the disruption, indeed, resulted from questions from the community, but Hipocrite was clearly interested in and attempting to tell the tale, and tried to get admins to agree to unblock him if he responded and was blocked for ban violation. That was an amazing piece of business itself, it could have led to wheel-warring and even desysopping. A prior agreement to unblock someone for an AE block? One admin pointed out the problem. Scott acted to prevent this mess by unblocking, himself. An AE enforcing admin may reverse his or her own decision.

Scott's block itself was probably unwise, unless preceded by a specific warning to drop the topic entirely.

For perspective, I was last blocked from an AE complaint filed by Hipocrite, for a harmless edit that was self-reverted, that caused no actual disruption at all, the only sign it was even noticed was from the Hipocrite complaint. That was a comment on an RfAr where my name and history had been cited by Mathsci, and I had some testimony about that to give, but I elected to do it through a self-reverted edit to the RfAr Talk page, and would have -- and did -- leave it at that. I did not appeal the block because I don't run useless process, even to right some "wrong." I didn't need to edit Wikipedia for the period, that's a trivial loss, if it is any loss at all.

From the history, Hipocrite has caused major disruption, again and again. That the community allowed this to go on is Just Another Sign of Massive Community Dysfunction. It will continue until the structural causes are addressed. These people are just acting out roles set up by the structure.

Posted by: Milton Roe

So long as it didn't happen in a public bathroom.

Posted by: Polargeo

As long as you don't continue to attack or join in with general attacks against editors via Wikipedia Review and then threaten editors with your admin powers "on wiki" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AScott_MacDonald&action=historysubmit&diff=396462767&oldid=396452131 when they complain about the behaviour of people on wikipedia review then we will all get along very well. If you continue that sort of behaviour you will get caught in the vice. Watch Lar he generally manages to stay the right side of the boundary with only a marginal exception or two.

Posted by: thegoodlocust

That was an amusing thread to read just because of Tony's rant against trolls, which provided my favorite line of the decade with this:

"No I don't use Usenet in recent years, precisely because it filled up with ridiculous trolls. "

Wow! Tony aka Sherilyn Sidaway calling other people ridiculous trolls when he goes around online pretending to be a female to have cybersex with men! Incredible.

Anyway, I imagine I could get along well with the climate club in an offline environment. William and I actually have a similar personality (he is an INTP while I'm INT(J/P)) and he'd likely make a good chess buddy. That being said, I tend to go off the wall and lash out at bullies and in response to bullying behavior, and since I perceive a lot of them acting that way, like a gang in many respects, then that will occasionally set me off. Additionally, we all behave differently online (whether we admit it or not) and we often forget that there are real people on the other end who simply disagree on various issues - the drive to "win" is so dehumanizing for both sides.