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

[Grep]

Some of the more hilarious rhetoric, most but not all in the pot-kettle department

WMC

• "my attention was drawn to CF"
  (we used to call it stalking)
• admits to protecting a page version for amusement value
• "A often seemed confused about the terms of the ban"
  (that would be "an indeterminate period of approximately a month" which "remains, to be reviewed in approximately another month" )

Enric Naval

• "Abd believes that he knows better than other users"
  (of course, it's Enric itself who knows best)
• "Abd says that hoaxes should not be deleted, and hoaxers tolerated"
  (Abd said that hoaxes should be blanked by any user instead of deleted by admins)
• "Abd assumes the existance of bad-faith cabals"
  (I wonder where he gets that idea from?)
• "Abd performs experiments with democracy"
  (outrageous)
• "Abd sees no problem at all with his very long posts"
  (subheading 25 out of 27 total in Enric's evidence)

Mathsci

• "Abd has made unfounded statements about William M. Connolley" / "WMC is part of some covert off-wiki conspiracy." / "Since this case began he has written that WMC has been "coddling" me."
  (Such as by blocking people who annoy Mathsci, whom WMC meets for drinks IRL)
• "Abd claims to have scientific expertise"
  (Mathsci claims to be a scientist but his expertise is in pure mathematics)
• "Abd appears to be supported by a small tag team"
  (Mathsci's being a little larger)
• "My brief involvement on Talk:Cold fusion has been minimal and constructive"
  (16 edits, including "Abd's contributions here seem to be extremely skewed." "In view of his poor namespace editing record, my advice to Abd is to attempt to edit a non-controversial article on science in order to get more experience in handling scientific sourcing in a completely neutral context. That might be a valuable eye-opener." "Abd is not the person to lead discussions here.")

[Somey]

I guess I should be more careful what I ask for, eh?

Nevertheless, I did read the whole thing, and while I (naturally) would tend to disagree with Takahashi in that the palladium lattice tends to form an octahedral pattern which collapses to form a really bad cheese soufflé, which then fuses to the pan (and becomes very difficult to clean off even with a Brillo pad) and ultimately decays to the point where it's so moldy even the ants won't touch it, scientifically speaking I don't (personally) see your assertions as unreasonable.

What's important from our perspective here would be the issue of whether or not Connelley's and Raul's treatment of you, and by extension that of the entire "anti-pseudoscience cabal," is based at least partially on revenge (over the JzG business?), or perhaps a general attempt to "pick off" the skeptics over time, since they clearly feel threatened by such people. I take it they've refused to accept your sources as "reliable"...? And it sounds like most of their efforts have amounted to little more than "wikilawyering" and novel interpretations of rules, or simply ignoring the rules altogether?

All that would certainly tally with the previous experiences some of our members have had with Connelley and Raul654. As for Mr. Hipocrite, well... he's a difficult one to figure out, I'm afraid. He seems to be a classic case of the "obnoxious idealist," assuming there actually are "classic" cases of that around. Some of us would probably also describe him as "misguided" too, though some of us would describe just about anyone who's pro-WP that way, of course...

Anyway, this just reinforces my earlier reasoning behind my preference for iceberg, romaine, and butter lattice.

[Mathsci]

The problem is that Abd is wasting everybody's time by posting his verbal diarrhea here and not preparing his "evidence" for the ArbCom case.

I wouldn't be surprised if Abd asked for one year's sabbatical leave to prepare his evidence about WMC, while all proceedings are frozen. Perhaps Jimbo and the WMF could shut down wikipedia for a year.

Meanwhile, Somey, why would anybody discuss this case here, except for light-hearted froth and self-parody?

[Somey]

Meanwhile, Somey, why would anybody discuss this case here, except for light-hearted froth and self-parody?

Obviously because we're much more likely to look at the situation objectively, and not bog down the process of getting to the actual point with a lot of hot air about incomprehensible rules and procedure? Assuming we know the basics of what's actually going on, of course.

Besides, you would say that, since you're on the side of the ones with the administrative rights in this case. I'm not saying you're wrong, but to simply dismiss what Abd is saying as "verbal diarrhea" is really just a form of chicanery. Sure, it's way too lengthy for most people, but it seems clear enough that he's not as unreasonable as he's being made out to be. And either way, one could just as easily say that he'd be "wasting everyone's time" more by concentrating on the ArbCom case exclusively, since that's likely to be a foregone conclusion.

In most cases like this, the controlling forces eventually get frustrated, give up on "consensus" and "NPOV," and just do whatever they have to to make the "tendentious editors" go away. And what are they protecting, really? Personally, I'd rather see WP show a bit more tolerance for various "pseudoscience" agendas, if there's a chance that by not doing so, they'd be helping to suppress the small number of alternative ideas and approaches that actually have some merit. It's not like the site has a reputation for accuracy to defend, after all.

[EricBarbour]

In most cases like this, the controlling forces eventually get frustrated, give up on "consensus" and "NPOV," and just do whatever they have to to make the "tendentious editors" go away. And what are they protecting, really? Personally, I'd rather see WP show a bit more tolerance for various "pseudoscience" agendas, if there's a chance that by not doing so, they'd be helping to suppress the small number of alternative ideas and approaches that actually have some merit. It's not like the site has a reputation for accuracy to defend, after all.

Thanks--well put. That is the whole thing about this so-called dispute. These boys are
enjoying typing at each other too much to actually address the original issue. They typed
like hell at each other on WP, and now they're dragging their perversely long-winded
micturitions to WR, where they can be less "civil", or so they think.

And still, there is no quarter, no one is convinced of anything (least of all the witnesses
to this utter bullshit), and nothing is accomplished. Ya know, it seems to me that 50
years from now, if the contents of this forum survive, people will be amazed and/or
horrified at how Wikipedia's dispute over cold fusion was "debated".

Yes, little men: instead of carrying this on forever, like the Hatfield-McCoy feud,
why don't you come to some kind of compromise? You can ignore me, and return
to sniping at each other. (And these new witnesses you have, on WR, will sit here
and chuckle at your highly erudite cluelessness.) Or you could come to some kind
of mutual agreement, and implement it on-wiki.

[Abd]

These boys are
enjoying typing at each other too much to actually address the original issue. They typed
like hell at each other on WP, and now they're dragging their perversely long-winded
micturitions to WR, where they can be less "civil", or so they think.

You could call it that. Or more frank, you could call it that as well. Eric, I'm addressing the "original issue." However, curious, what *is* the original issue in your opinion? To me, it's the cabal, which speaks with a dozen tongues, so each one can seem nice and concise. Cogent? No, but who cares about that?

And still, there is no quarter, no one is convinced of anything (least of all the witnesses
to this utter bullshit), and nothing is accomplished.

Quarter? Who has the buttons to push? Who's been banning editors for disagreeing?

Ya know, it seems to me that 50
years from now, if the contents of this forum survive, people will be amazed and/or
horrified at how Wikipedia's dispute over cold fusion was "debated".

Well, I've been involved with on-line debate for well over twenty years, and I've read back quite a bit. What I see is that the facts were typically plain, positions were plain, but the witnesses were lazy. The evidence was all there, anyone who would, instead of asking for the opinion of others, actually investigate, would get what happened. Instead, people take the easy road: the obsessed editor must be the problem, get rid of him, things will be fine. Never thinking, for a moment that they are the problem, the editor is obsessed because they won't listen. So they ban the victim, and the actual cause continues, encouraged.

Yes, little men: instead of carrying this on forever, like the Hatfield-McCoy feud,
why don't you come to some kind of compromise? You can ignore me, and return
to sniping at each other. (And these new witnesses you have, on WR, will sit here
and chuckle at your highly erudite cluelessness.) Or you could come to some kind
of mutual agreement, and implement it on-wiki.

Compromise was tried. With JzG, I tried for about three months. With WMC, much less, because it was quickly plain that WMC wasn't interested in any compromise at all. What compromise? Got one to suggest?

Take a look at the RfAr in a week or two. You will see me suggesting compromise. It might surprise you. However, you want my summary of the Wikipedia problem. It's you, Eric, and everyone else like you, quick to judge, slow to investigate, unwilling to work to find compromise, blaming everyone else for "feuding." And unwilling to consider how that problem could be addressed, because, of course, it would involve looking at ourselves.