Connolley's time of the month (again) Options

[thegoodlocust]

So after both of us were banned from the CC proposed decision page, I for pointing out that WMC was simply stirring shit for shit's sake and WMC for calling me insane, WMC seems to have gone on yet another one of his temper tantrums:

After running around to various talk pages making an ass out of himself he ended up calling Sandstein insane after a dispute where Connolley sees no problem with him edit warring to delete his own comments in a conversation on Sandstein's talk page - Sandstein's position is that he should strike out his comments, but not remove them.

Will Lankiveil block him as promised for making yet another PA? (probably not since several admins have made similar "threats" in the past and not followed through - not that anyone would notice though since he tends to delete such warnings on his talk page)

In any case:

http://myspace.roflposters.com/images/rofl...%5D.myspace.jpg

Also, I was going to mention that he now appears to be socking, something he's done in the past when he's gotten ticked off, but I'm really not sure what to make of this. This IP seems to be trolling around a bit, and it belongs to Connolley's "old' employer the BAS, but if you look at the history of the IP then it looks like it has been used by Polargeo (before and after).

The most obvious conclusion is that Polargeo and Connolley worked at the same place (at the same time?), which is probably nothing more than an interesting factoid.

[Abd]

So after both of us were banned from the CC proposed decision page, I for pointing out that WMC was simply stirring shit for shit's sake and WMC for calling me insane, WMC seems to have gone on yet another one of his temper tantrums:

After running around to various talk pages making an ass out of himself he ended up calling Sandstein insane after a dispute where Connolley sees no problem with him edit warring to delete his own comments in a conversation on Sandstein's talk page - Sandstein's position is that he should strike out his comments, but not remove them. [... etc.]

I've been fascinated to see how someone like WMC could behave in ways that would get a lesser mortal blocked in a flash, yet ArbComm piddles around trying to figure out what to do.

It's not that I'm big on blocking and banning, but .... if you are going to do it, how about blocking and banning the most disruptive, uncivil, disruptive of all the trolls? His behavior, as documented in RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley, was utterly outrageous, and it continued, only without admin tools.

I certainly got no gratitude for having reduced his clout that much. There is hardly anyone defending me on-wiki, certainly not of the old-timers. One of the global warming skeptic crowd has, and GoRight practically sacrificed himself for me, even though I have a very different POV. I prefer the company of the blocked and banned, to most of the idiots who remain. Still, here and there, there are glimpses of light. Petri Krohn, perhaps an enemy of some of my friends, has nevertheless been very helpful. Friends show up in the oddest places! If I were allowed, I'd try to mediate.... but I'm not, at least not on-wiki. That's ArbComm!

Rootology appears to have retired over Connolley's revert warring with him, during the RfAr, over a notice placed on Hipocrite's Talk page. I'd theorized that WMC and Hipocrite were in cahoots, that the whole situation where he banned both me and Hipocrite from cold fusion was a charade, and this was, later, quite a confirmation. Why was WMC risking sanction to protect Hipocrite from a mere notice?

Rootology was renamed to User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired (T-C-L-K-R-D) , see the essay: User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing (T-H-L-K-D)

This is the legacy of people like WMC and others whom ArbComm has long tolerated. In the end, this is ArbComm's legacy, because by sanctioning others and leaving these "valuable volunteers" alone, they enabled them, like any collection of co-dependents.

[NuclearWarfare]

Where on Earth did you get that one from, Abd? From my perspective, it is pretty clear that Rootology resigned over disagreements (to put it mildly) about Wikipedia's governance (or lack thereof). Just take a look at his last 150 contributions...

[Hipocrite]

It is, as usual, a complete and total fabrication by serial liar Abd. Shocker.

[tarantino]

Also, I was going to mention that he now appears to be socking, something he's done in the past when he's gotten ticked off, but I'm really not sure what to make of this. This IP seems to be trolling around a bit, and it belongs to Connolley's "old' employer the BAS, but if you look at the history of the IP then it looks like it has been used by Polargeo (before and after).

The most obvious conclusion is that Polargeo and Connolley worked at the same place (at the same time?), which is probably nothing more than an interesting factoid.

17:39, 6 October 2010 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked 194.66.0.0/24 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})
How embarrassing.

Here's a list of all of the 204 IP edits from that range.

[Cla68]

Also, I was going to mention that he now appears to be socking, something he's done in the past when he's gotten ticked off, but I'm really not sure what to make of this. This IP seems to be trolling around a bit, and it belongs to Connolley's "old' employer the BAS, but if you look at the history of the IP then it looks like it has been used by Polargeo (before and after).

The most obvious conclusion is that Polargeo and Connolley worked at the same place (at the same time?), which is probably nothing more than an interesting factoid.

17:39, 6 October 2010 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked 194.66.0.0/24 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ ({{checkuserblock}})
How embarrassing.

Here's a list of all of the 204 IP edits from that range.

I expect that we'll see more IPs making edits to climate change BLPs, or their talk pages, from now on with so many editors now topic banned who used to be active with those articles. Hopefully the participating admins (NuclearWarfare, this includes you) will be as dedicated at blocking the accounts who try to evade their bans, even if it is WMC or Polargeo, as they were at reverting suspected Scibaby edits. I shouldn't have to say it since I'm also topic banned, but none of those IPs will be me, as now that the case is closed I'm taking all the CC articles off my watchlist.

I suspect that WMC, if he doesn't fall prey to temptation to evade his ban by socking in the CC topic, will attempt to continue to influence the CC articles from his user talk page by posting links to RealClimate articles and the like. That's fine. As long as he is kept from continuing to try to defame BLP subjects with views on global warming that he doesn't approve of. The fact that it took so many years to get him stopped is completely ridiculous. I think it provides more evidence that Wikipedia is truly a social media forum and far from a really serious attempt at building an encyclopedia.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Could someone post a link to the most recent ArbCom decision on climate change? I always have difficulty finding them.

[EricBarbour]

It is, as usual, a complete and total fabrication by serial liar Abd. Shocker.

Newsflash: no one here believes you.

Prove it.

[Cla68]

Could someone post a link to the most recent ArbCom decision on climate change? I always have difficulty finding them.

The decision is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...#Final_decision (I haven't been participating much lately so I can't remember how to embed the link in a word). Hipocrite was topic-banned also.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Could someone post a link to the most recent ArbCom decision on climate change? I always have difficulty finding them.

The decision is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...#Final_decision (I haven't been participating much lately so I can't remember how to embed the link in a word). Hipocrite was topic-banned also.

Wow, this is certainly groundbreaking:

Blocking and Banning

13) The purpose of blocking accounts and banning editors is to address the disruptive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour of the specific editor, not to silence a perspective. Without additional supportive evidence (such as identical wording as used by a banned editor), editors new to a topic who seek to include information proposed in the past by a now-blocked or -banned editor should be treated with good faith. An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.

Passed 8 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

[Ottava]

It is, as usual, a complete and total fabrication by serial liar Abd. Shocker.

Which is kinda why Abd's campaigns always fizzle out.

[NuclearWarfare]

Hopefully the participating admins (NuclearWarfare, this includes you) will be as dedicated at blocking the accounts who try to evade their bans, even if it is WMC or Polargeo, as they were at reverting suspected Scibaby edits.

I would, if it weren't for this fact.


Herschelkrustofsky, that principle you quote there is also somewhat contradictory to the following remedy. So it doesn't really matter too much; it won't change behavior in any way.

Administrators, Checkusers, and the Climate change topic area

4.5) Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area, to ensure that accounts that are sockpuppets of a particular chronically disruptive banned user are prevented from editing, while keeping to the lowest possible level instances in which innocent new editors are incorrectly blocked or would-be editors are caught in rangeblocks. Discussion of methods of identifying sockpuppet edits in this area should generally be conducted off-wiki. We note that there may be legitimate instances of disagreement and difficult judgment calls to be made in addressing these issues. However, administrators are cautioned that, without more evidence, merely expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts in the area of Climate change, does not constitute sufficient evidence that an editor is a sockpuppet of the banned user in question.

[CharlotteWebb]

Administrators, Checkusers, and the Climate change topic area

4.5) Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area, to ensure that accounts that are sockpuppets of a particular chronically disruptive banned user are prevented from editing, while keeping to the lowest possible level instances in which innocent new editors are incorrectly blocked or would-be editors are caught in rangeblocks. Discussion of methods of identifying sockpuppet edits in this area should generally be conducted off-wiki. We note that there may be legitimate instances of disagreement and difficult judgment calls to be made in addressing these issues. However, administrators are cautioned that, without more evidence, merely expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts in the area of Climate change, does not constitute sufficient evidence that an editor is a sockpuppet of the banned user in question.

Class-action "remedies" like this (against an unclosed set of unnamed users) are too close to policy-making for my comfort, and probably should be disregarded.

[Cla68]

Hopefully the participating admins (NuclearWarfare, this includes you) will be as dedicated at blocking the accounts who try to evade their bans, even if it is WMC or Polargeo, as they were at reverting suspected Scibaby edits.

I would, if it weren't for this fact.


Herschelkrustofsky, that principle you quote there is also somewhat contradictory to the following remedy. So it doesn't really matter too much; it won't change behavior in any way.

Administrators, Checkusers, and the Climate change topic area

4.5) Experienced administrators and particularly holders of the Checkuser permission are requested to closely monitor new accounts that edit inappropriately in the Climate change topic area, to ensure that accounts that are sockpuppets of a particular chronically disruptive banned user are prevented from editing, while keeping to the lowest possible level instances in which innocent new editors are incorrectly blocked or would-be editors are caught in rangeblocks. Discussion of methods of identifying sockpuppet edits in this area should generally be conducted off-wiki. We note that there may be legitimate instances of disagreement and difficult judgment calls to be made in addressing these issues. However, administrators are cautioned that, without more evidence, merely expressing a particular opinion or emphasizing particular facts in the area of Climate change, does not constitute sufficient evidence that an editor is a sockpuppet of the banned user in question.

Here's the thing about the Scibaby boogieman, in my nine months or so of involvement in the topic area, I saw a lot of reverted edits attributed to Scibaby. From what I observed, none of the edits were vandalism and very few of them were outright outrageous. Most of them were reverts of reverts of somewhat controversial material. So, I'm having a hard time understanding why it is necessary to risk blocking false-positive editors in the name of Scibaby as seems to happen far too often.

In my opinion, the WMC bloc didn't like Scibaby because he kept adding material and sources they did not approve of, forcing them to spend too much time guarding the CC articles. It didn't matter to them if the blocked editor wasn't Scibaby, they were happy to have blocked an editor that was making unapproved and unappreciated edits to their articles. Their behavior matches with the essay I wrote (with help from SlimVirgin and few others) about the attitudes of activist editors.

This post has been edited by Cla68:

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Their behavior matches with the essay I wrote (with help from SlimVirgin and few others) about the attitudes of activist editors.

From Wikipedia:Activist:
The activists will especially display this behavior if they don't think they are being watched closely by Wikipedia's administrators, which may be because several of the activists are administrators themselves.

Aye, there's the rub.

[thegoodlocust]

I would, if it weren't for this fact.

So was your resignation/firing due to your release of private personal information that was used to harass people offline and possibly put them in physical danger? Is this being censored at wikipedia because they (and you) may be held liable if anything happens to them?

More importantly, why isn't ScienceApologist banned from wikipedia if he played a part in this? Does the person behind that account have that much clout (Raul654?)?

[NuclearWarfare]

I would, if it weren't for this fact.

So was your resignation/firing due to your release of private personal information that was used to harass people offline and possibly put them in physical danger? Is this being censored at wikipedia because they (and you) may be held liable if anything happens to them?

More importantly, why isn't ScienceApologist banned from wikipedia if he played a part in this? Does the person behind that account have that much clout (Raul654?)?

No one asked me to resign, because I supposedly released private information or for any other reason either. Confirm it with any arbitrator you wish. It isn't being censored on Wikipedia to protect me. Even if it were being censored on WP for that reason, how on Earth would that affect anything in real life.

ScienceApologist isn't banned because he didn't violate outing or harassment policies. I would doubt very much that he has any "clout" though, considering that he has been banned before. Also, the fact that he is Raul654's sockpuppet is simply laughable. Do some research next time?

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare:

[ATren]

I would, if it weren't for this fact.

But you still emit unjustified warnings as if you were an admin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=390911035

What exactly did Ed Poor do to warrant that? One pretty innocuous edit, which he discussed on talk, and then one revert, with a promise not to revert again. That merits a warning? Looks like you're right back to your old self again, NW, bit or no bit.

And I wonder if seeking content input from a topic-banned user is considered OK for a so-called "neutral" admin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=390844758
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=390771301
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=389539366

I'm sure it's OK; the rules don't apply to those supporting the house POV.

This post has been edited by ATren:

[ATren]

Their behavior matches with the essay I wrote (with help from SlimVirgin and few others) about the attitudes of activist editors.

From Wikipedia:Activist:
The activists will especially display this behavior if they don't think they are being watched closely by Wikipedia's administrators, which may be because several of the activists are administrators themselves.

Aye, there's the rub.

Two of the worst activist admins, 2/0 and NW, are still eligible to participate in enforcement there, while Lar -- whom the committee acknowledged was NOT involved and was one of the lone voices of sanity -- HAS been removed. How could then state he's not involved... and then remove him anyway? Because he was getting in the way of the worthy feel-good cause Wikipedia wants to promote.

So now with Lar and every other sane voice of opposition removed, the POV pushing admins have free reign. And indeed, NW has already hurled the first stone, with his first spurious warning of someone he doesn't agree with. 2/0 should arrive any day now.

This post has been edited by ATren:

[Abd]

It is, as usual, a complete and total fabrication by serial liar Abd. Shocker.

No, I prefer to lie all at once, in a tome, don't you know anything, you ninny?

I see that the bells have started tolling for you and company. ArbComm is an equal opportunity blunderbuss.

Now, as to Rootology. Let me rummage around in my kit. Surely Hipocrite, though he had "retired" at that point -- a trick he's used so many times that one would think it would be becoming a tad obvious, but .... -- is aware of what happened on his Talk page. It looks like it was the last straw for Rootology.

My notice to Hipocrite, I was adding him to the RfAr

Connolley reverts.

Rootology restores it.

Connolley reverts and refers to the RfAr page, where he was reverting my addition to the filing.

Rootology dings WMC for reverting the notice. WMC blows him off. The clerks were snoozing.

WMC had reverted the addition of Hipocrite to the case. This is why WMC could claim that Hipocrite was not a party, because he had reverted me, the filer of the case, setting up my own section, acting as if he could clerk a case where he was a primary party. And, in fact, he could, because the clerks did nothing.

Guettarda dings Rootology for using rollback to revert WMC. Rootology answers at 21:38.

At this point I assume that Rootology had, correctly, noticed that Wikipedia had gone completely mad. WMC actually revert warred (two reverts, one of me and then one of Rootology), and Rootology is dinged for one revert because he used rollback?

Rootology saw all this and was gone, quickly, starting to shut things down at 23:50. Sure, this wasn't the only cause. But it was sure proximate.

Now, what was all this about? Why was WMC willing to risk it? It certainly seemed that he led a charmed life, he did so much totally outrageous stuff, and not just to ordinary editors, he wheel-warred, edited under protection, and on and on. And he was grossly uncivil, again and again, and it took years for ArbComm to get around to addressing it, and even then ... most editors would have been site-banned several times over for what he did.

Because the clerks paid no attention to this complete violation of ArbComm process, it stood, and Hipocrite's actions received much less attention than they deserved.

I think it's obvious. How far back the conspiracy goes, I don't know, but definitely when WMC banned both Hipocrite and I from cold fusion -- Hipocrite had been the one revert warring, not I, not that last incidence -- it was for an appearance of equal treatment. WMC had been itching to get rid of me for maybe a year.

Hipocrite didn't care about cold fusion, he never made any substantial edits except for one that he made just as he requested page protection, and later, in the polling I was trying to run to find the most-approved version, he didn't even support his own version, it was so bad. He had suddenly come in with totally obnoxious behavior, much worse than the ordinary "skeptical POV" editors like Enric Naval, with whom it was possible to work.

I think that WMC had agreed to protect Hipocrite if he helped to arrange my ban. So he was fulfilling his part of the deal. I see no other explanation.

It would not have worked if ArbComm had been willing to confront the cabal a bit sooner. It would not have worked if ArbComm actually had set up and used decent process. They did better in the Climate Change case, though it took donkey's ages.

They allowed total misbehavior to run rampant on the case pages in the Abd-WMC arbitration. And, indeed, though WMC had made it utterly necessary to desysop him or it would have been way too obvious that he had a pass, they shot the messenger, an ancient tradition that they must have picked up from reading articles on feudal tyrants.