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.

[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: Thu 14th October 2010, 11:33pm

[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.

[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: Fri 15th October 2010, 7:36am

[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.