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

[ATren]

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.

Why would he start editing? A "neutral" admin can do much more for his cause than a lowly editor.

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.

The real travesty of this case is that more of those editors were not sanctioned, even though the arbs were presented with plenty of evidence to do so. Tony Sidaway was actually clerking the case even though he was an active participant in the content battles. How does he get away with it? (Yes, I know the answer -- house POV defenders can do whatever they want and survive).

I tried to get Shell Kinney to look at the evidence for Guettarda, SBHB, Stephan Schulz, and the activist admins 2/0, NW, TOAT and FPAS. She refused to even look at the evidence. Neither did Roger or any of the others. The best you can say about them is they are lazy, but I think it's even more than that: they think Wikipedia can save the world, and they think POV pushing in this topic area is the way to do it.

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.

Why would they change now? The situation is actually more favorable for them now that Lar, you, me, JWB and a bunch of others have been removed while friendly admins like NW and 2/0 remain to clear out any others who dare oppose the house POV. If anything, their tactics will escalate because there is not even a check on their behavior anymore.

This post has been edited by ATren: Sun 17th October 2010, 12:11am

[Cla68]

Why would they change now? The situation is actually more favorable for them now that Lar, you, me, JWB and a bunch of others have been removed while friendly admins like NW and 2/0 remain to clear out any others who dare oppose the house POV. If anything, their tactics will escalate because there is not even a check on their behavior anymore.

I don't think that is entirely the case. First of all, the ArbCom did make it clear that no more monkey business will be allowed with CC BLPs. The three worst offenders of that policy were topic banned. Also, the news is out that WMC is topic banned, which I think will draw more new, interested editors to the topic in Wikipedia, on both sides.

I don't think the CC articles will dramatically improve in the future as far as NPOV, but I don't think they will get much worse. I think the environment for newbie editors will be better with those articles. Actually, only a few of those articles are blatantly POV, and those are the ones directly related to RealClimate and Connolley's paleoclimatic friends, like "Hockey Stick Controversy" or the "Climategate" article. I'll be interested to see how those articles look six months or so from now.

[Abd]

Why would they change now? The situation is actually more favorable for them now that Lar, you, me, JWB and a bunch of others have been removed while friendly admins like NW and 2/0 remain to clear out any others who dare oppose the house POV. If anything, their tactics will escalate because there is not even a check on their behavior anymore.

I don't think that is entirely the case. First of all, the ArbCom did make it clear that no more monkey business will be allowed with CC BLPs.

It may improve, but this is the biggest problem: the combination of various POVs, which is what often motivates people to edit an article, and knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and dispute resolution process. ArbComm tends to be slow to act, but then it often acts excessively. Sanctions should be measured, with Talk page access the last to go. If an editor is restricted to making suggestions in Talk, they may soon get it that, first of all, incivility will get them completely banned or at least topic banned, depending on whether they are WMC or not, and, second, if they make suggestions that are not adequately sourced, they will be wasting their time.

I'll say it again: Wikipedia should be quick to ban editors from the article page, except for self-reverted edits -- that was a sophisticated suggestion treated as if it was some attempt to wikilawyer! --, but slow to ban from Talk, because banning from Talk is very often excluding the most knowledgeable editors, and restricting them to Talk means they must respect other editors or they will be ignored.

True POV pushers will attack an article-banned editor, even when the editor follows COI rules (that's equivalent to a rough article ban from making edits that can be expected to be controversial), and that would be obvious for anyone following the activity at Cold fusion, but nobody follows it except for editors with an axe to grind. Cold fusion is under discretionary sanctions, but the only application of these sanctions so far has been to reban me for ... for ... for what? Now, my own question is whether or not I bother appealing this particular blatant stupidity. Indeed, this is how Wikipedia disintegrates: the brightest and smartest, most knowledgeable, and most motivated to create a neutral project, run into the Problem, and mostly just leave. It takes entirely too much time to run dispute resolution process, even at the article level, given the absence of skilled facilitation.

Dispute resolution process requires a lot of discussion! Sound bite exchanges preserve POV disputes and even amplify them, as the motive becomes winning a debate instead of seeking mutual understanding and consensus. The situation is so bad on Wikipedia, when disputes arise, that many experienced Wikipedians believe that factions will always be at each other's throats, that consensus is impossible, therefore the only solution is to ban the most egregious offenders.

Bans should be reserved for those who will not participate in dispute resolution, who will not restrain themselves when under "voluntary ban," i.e., bans not enforced by blocks, pending dispute resolution. And there would be a path to return, always, and that was part of the self-reversion proposal. And it works. It the community respects it! Serious POV-pushers, true fanatics, won't bother with self-reversion, it's easier for them to sock.

Wikipedia desperately needs, not more administrators, but more *facilitators.* And, ironically, that's what I was good at, particularly when I wasn't involved, but even sometimes when I was. So ... ArbComm banned me from it, completely. At the time, it seemed the scope of the MYOB ban was limited, but the cabal made sure that interpretation of it crept up, to the point to becoming an almost complete gag order, applying, for example, to user talk pages where the user welcomed my comments. But someone else objected. "Dispute" was widened to mean, for example, a request on the blacklist talk page for a whitelisting, where nobody had objected, I responded with a suggestion, someone else then objected, and I responded to that. MYOB!

And always the same people filing the enforcement requests. Usually Hipocrite, now banned from Climate Change, but Climate Change was only one area of cabal activity. Too little from ArbComm, too late, and then, paradoxically, too much, too soon.

Content? The hell with content! Protect the admin core, that is the real motivation, and this goes way back, it's a structural defect, which, once built in, can be the devil to change. And the tools of this "policy," which could, of course, never be stated as such, it would be a User:Abd/Rule 0 violation, are unaware of it, generally. They think they are enforcing this or that policy or rule; what they don't see is how the rules are selectively applied. Until it's too late, and the bell is tolling for them.