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.

[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: Fri 15th October 2010, 10:54pm

[thegoodlocust]

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.

You have a bright future as a lawyer.

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?

ScienceApologist is probably in desperate need of therapy and medication - my opinion is that he has serous mental problems. There are a half-dozen reasons besides whatever you, him and Usher did to ban him. The suggestion that he is someone with political power like Raul is merely an example (I would not be terribly surprised if Raul was or is socking in the area though).

The point is that there is some reason he hasn't been banned. He is either innocent of the charges, the charges can't be proven effectively or he has some sort of clout that has nullified the judgment. I pointed out to Risker that SA has flat out stated that one of his goals is to needle people to hope they screw up and make mistakes that can get them banned.

That self-declared modus operandi by itself was sufficient to topic ban (if not outright ban) him. The only question is, "why not?"

[Abd]

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.

ScienceApologist is probably in desperate need of therapy and medication - my opinion is that he has serous mental problems.

I've been forced to more or less the same conclusion.

Wikipedia can have very selective vision. ScienceApologist has many friends who generally agree with his pseudoskeptical POV. When JzG went to AN to request a renewal of my Cold fusion ban, if the admin reviewed the history of what had been going on, he'd have seen serious misbehavior by ScienceApologist, tendentious POV-pushing beyond all reason, clear violation of the prior Fringe science arbitration that originally banned him from Cold fusion. That was a short ban, three months, from all fringe science articles. His nemesis, Pcarbonn, for far lesser offense -- if any offense at all! -- was banned for a year.

He'd also have seen Hipocrite acting up, both of them seriously, both of them with article editing, I was merely discussing. (I did make two edits that I expected would be accepted, but SA and Hipocrite showed up unexpectedly....)

Cold fusion is now under discretionary sanctions, and what GWH did in banning me was to look only at my edits, it appears, and not the context. He sees me "arguing" with more than one editor, so, easy assumption, I'm tendentious. He doesn't look at the RfAr that he's enforcing to see editor histories. He doesn't understand the arguments or the issues, and why complex discussion might be needed. SA wasn't mentioned in that arbitration, though, because he'd already been banned and he hadn't been active at all with the article in the period when I was.

SA is now arguing that the immense amount of material that has appeared in mainstream peer-reviewed journals over the last five years (See the Sources page at Wikiversity:Cold fusion) is not usable because it's not "independent." That's based on the authors being researchers in the field, or writers following the field. Whom does he expect will write an article about the field? An ornithologist?

He's completely missed that the peer reviewers are now accepting articles, and the latest review, the deepest on the critical evidence for cold fusion, in the most prestigious journal, was actually solicited, the Naturwissenschaften "Status of cold fusion (2010)." Supposedly the gold standard for Wikipedia sourcing is peer-reviewed secondary source, and the "independent" requirement refers to publishers, not authors.

He's blatantly POV-pushing, tendentiously (against consensus at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard), and ... I'm prohibited from bringing this up on Wikipedia. Why?

GWH cited my delisting request (;enr-canr.org) at meta as a cause for the ban renewal. Besides being iffy as hell, citing off-wiki behavior, that request was fully in line with general community consensus. I was indeed challenging meta admin decisions, and I was prepared to go to an RfC if, as seemed fairly likely, the request was denied. Blacklist admins have a strong tendency to never delist, and I could certainly explain why.... (But Beetstra granted it, after complaining about my "irrelevancies." My "irrelevancy" was that I based the claim on the blacklisting never having had an adequate reason, it was abusive content control, as ArbComm had addressed, from the start. But I also responded to the farrago of issues raised as rationalizations, which takes a lot of words, so ... there goes that wall-o-text Abd again.... the original request was brief and to the point and a truly neutral admin would have granted it, no question, no fuss.)

Structural problem, bottom line.