Connolley starts to worm his way out of his ban Options

[thegoodlocust]

In the past I've pointed out on-wiki how Connolley's pattern is to break his various sanctions in the most drama producing way possible. Typically, he does this by innocuously violating his sanction, which usually results in someone filing a request for enforcement against him while his typical allies rally forth with cries of, "But it didn't harm anyone!" - this sort of thing usually ends with his sanction being "clarified" (i.e. the severity is reduced).

If nobody complains then he ups the ante and violates his ban in a slightly more serious way until someone complains or until people just accept that the ban doesn't really apply to him.

Well, he has already started this tried and true tactic by removing a simple bit of vandalism from the diamond dust article. But oh noes? Is it climate related or meteorology? It has a climate section, but it isn't really about global warming. <1>

Of course, why would someone vandalize a lowly-trafficked article that hasn't been edited since June is anyone's guess. I mean, Connolley would never use a proxy or friend to vandalize a page just so he could prove a point and spite others....no....he certainly wouldn't.

I guess we'll see what Arbcom's definition of "broadly construed" means.

[Abd]

Of course, why would someone vandalize a lowly-trafficked article that hasn't been edited since June is anyone's guess. I mean, Connolley would never use a proxy or friend to vandalize a page just so he could prove a point and spite others....no....he certainly wouldn't.

I guess we'll see what Arbcom's definition of "broadly construed" means.

Bad idea, Goodlocust. Don't. They did stuff to me, wikilawyering my bans into this and that, not expected by me, but they had better excuses than what you came up with.

If he starts fixing vandalism on global warming articles, maybe something could be said about it, but, my view has been with his, long ago, that harmless edits, unless they rise to a level of nuisance for ban enforcement, should never result in a block. He only changed his mind when I was the one making the edit....

[thegoodlocust]

Bad idea, Goodlocust. Don't. They did stuff to me, wikilawyering my bans into this and that, not expected by me, but they had better excuses than what you came up with.

If he starts fixing vandalism on global warming articles, maybe something could be said about it, but, my view has been with his, long ago, that harmless edits, unless they rise to a level of nuisance for ban enforcement, should never result in a block. He only changed his mind when I was the one making the edit....

Oh I'm not going to file a formal complaint. The point of this, of pointing out what he does, is to get him to stop it himself or to inform others of the pattern in order to head off his plan before it comes to fruition. He really is quite predictable.

As I said, I've pointed this pattern of his out several times in the past when he has implemented the same tactics - either people will wake up and quit being manipulated or they won't. There isn't much I can do if people want to be manipulated by a nutter.

This post has been edited by thegoodlocust: Wed 20th October 2010, 5:22pm

[Kelly Martin]

There isn't much I can do if people want to be manipulated by a nutter.

Everyone on Wikipedia has already consented to being manipulated by nutters.

[Lar]

There isn't much I can do if people want to be manipulated by a nutter.

Everyone on Wikipedia has already consented to being manipulated by nutters.

Here too. And in real life.

We're all bozos on this bus.

(speaking of bozos, the WSJ mangles the case facts badly... 21 Oct opinion piece (oops, apparently webcite links don't work for the WSJ?) Wall Street Journal opinion piece direct link ... may not work.

(edited again! Try this one... the "transparent" (but very long!) WebCite® URL:

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%...date=2010-10-21 )

I think that one will work indef, not sure )