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.

[Minor4th]

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.

Can you break this down for me? What exactly does this mean or what do you think it means?

As for NW possibly releasing private information that led to off-wiki harassment, as one of the harassees, I'd appreciate if you would all give NW a break. He did not mean any harm and any part he played was unintentional. I think giving up the bit was appropriate, even if only temporarily, and some thoughtful introspection is warranted in this situation -- I trust that NW is giving it the attention it deserves. I do not agree with many of the admin actions NW has taken, and I have told him of my perception of biased actions on his part, but I also think he is a good kid trying to do the right thing. NW has made apologies and expressed appropriate regret for any inadvertent assistance he may have given to those who actually intended to cause harm. That's good enough for me and apparently good enough for Greg as well. I think the focus should remain on those who intended the harm.

This post has been edited by Somey: Sat 23rd October 2010, 5:52am

[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.

Can you break this down for me? What exactly does this mean or what do you think it means?

As for NW possibly releasing private information that led to off-wiki harassment, as one of the harassees, I'd appreciate if you would all give NW a break. He did not mean any harm and any part he played was unintentional. I think giving up the bit was appropriate, even if only temporarily, and some thoughtful introspection is warranted in this situation -- I trust that NW is giving it the attention it deserves. I do not agree with many of the admin actions NW has taken, and I have told him of my perception of biased actions on his part, but I also think he is a good kid trying to do the right thing. NW has made apologies and expressed appropriate regret for any inadvertent assistance he may have given to those who actually intended to cause harm. That's good enough for me and apparently good enough for Greg as well. I think the focus should remain on those who intended the harm -- ScienceApologist and Timothy Usher.

Well, perhaps NuclearWarfare is now going to fully commit to participation in the CC articles as a regular editor. If so, NW, hopefully you won't experience what it was like trying to edit those articles before the arbcom case closed.

NW, let me tell you, it was an absolutely miserable experience. I never knew if, after spending 30 minutes building and sourcing a paragraph, it would be reverted in its entirety minutes later by WMC, KimDPetersen, Tony Sidaway, or ChrisO. Then, if one tried to defend the text addition, you would have to face condescending and patronizing comments by those and other editors like Dave Souza, Guettarda, and ShortBrigadeHarvesterBoris.

Hopefully, those editors I mentioned above who somehow didn't get topic banned will abandon their myopia and start trying to work with all other editors on those articles instead of trying to chase them away or treat them in a dismissive manner. One thing to remember is that the way Wikipedia is structured it doesn't matter whether Wikipedia articles have expert attention or not. What matters is how the involved editors work together. If expertise was valued in Wikipedia, it would be governed more like Citizendium. Trying to give self-proclaimed experts some favoritism in Wikipedia is like trying to force a square block into a round hole.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sat 16th October 2010, 7:59am

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Hopefully, those editors I mentioned above who somehow didn't get topic banned will abandon their myopia and start trying to work with all other editors on those articles instead of trying to chase them away or treat them in a dismissive manner.

[Abd]

Hopefully, those editors I mentioned above who somehow didn't get topic banned will abandon their myopia and start trying to work with all other editors on those articles instead of trying to chase them away or treat them in a dismissive manner.

Yeah, right.

This is the house that ArbComm built. At Cold fusion, as elsewhere, I attempted to find true consensus. It takes discussion to do that, lots of discussion. To someone not interested in the topic, not interested in discussion, but just in pushing a general point of view that they imagine is "scientific," this is incomprehensible if brief and "wall of text" if it is detailed To write convincing polemic on a difficult topic is no simple task. People get paid lots of money to do it in the real world!

Discussion in real consensus process takes place in layers. Not all participants follow and participate in all layers, it is very inefficient if they do. Some layers involve deep discussion. Some deal only with distilled, boiled-down summaries.

I was not banned for "walls of text," but it's clear that some arbitrators wanted to, and that's what they remember as my offense. It's not exactly clear what I was banned for. From the MYOB ban, there was no finding of fact that involved not "minding my own business." There had been some idea that I'd abused dispute resolution process, but the origin of that, AFAIK, was JzG's refrain that I was beating a dead horse, by bringing up "old issues" -- i.e., his own personal decisions -- but, generally, the community decided with me on those, unless the cabal gathered, they could make it look like I was an isolated lunatic, and this got worse and worse.

At cold fusion, ArbComm had originally looked like it was going to decide almost exactly what I'd asked for. Then, suddenly, it reversed. The mentor idea (I was eager for it!) got tossed as useless, and the MYOB ban was proposed; there was an obvious meaning: we don't like that Abd identified and "prosecuted" administrative misbehavior. I'd done it for an admin who had been considered practically bulletproof.

ArbComm is, functionally, like a coward. When they are faced with massive misbehavior, a large faction, involving administrators, they are terrified that all these "useful volunteers" will take offense and go away. They generally ignore, then, the long-term damage done to ordinary editors, who are not valued.

They took an extraordinary length of time to start working on the case, after closing evidence and proposals, for a long time. ArbComm has become, functionally, a star chamber, they clearly do much or most of their deliberation privately.

They did finally address the issue of a mutually involved faction, I'd begged them to do it in my RfAr, but they decided it was too difficult to read my stuff. Naw, it wouldn't have been that difficult, the problem was difficult!

It was still too little, too late. GoRight remains banned, as an example. They had worked on that diligently for about two years. A faction can set up conditions to ban almost any editor, because they can create an appearance of consensus that will fool a neutral admin who doesn't investigate deeply.

The odd thing is that the Eastern European Mailing List editors were accused of this, but they hadn't actually done it. ArbComm threw the book at them; it seems that the worst offense of Piotrus was that he'd semiprotected an article after IPs were revert warring, having been canvassed on the mailing list to help. But the actual decision was mild, temporary, and quickly moot, since as soon as the IP's couldn't edit, apparent meat puppets showed up, new editors, and continued, and the article was full protected. I think it was the very idea of people with common interests communicating off-wiki that freaked them out.

But, of course, they do it all the time.