QUOTE(ATren @ Sat 13th November 2010, 9:45am)
Welcome to the climate change topic, where arbs had an opportunity to take out the real offenders but instead wimped out and just removed people like me, JWB and Cla68 who were trying to help. But at least it's for a good cause, right?
ArbComm seems to operate under a naive assumption that if the players in a conflict would just follow dispute resolution process, all would be well. Therefore if there is a conflict, there is a level of assumption that both parties must be at fault. This is combined with an assumption that "major contributors" may be flawed, but they are valuable and to be encouraged to continue with Wikipedia, where as an "outsider" is just going to continue to make trouble
"Major contributors" means "someone I've worked with or who thinks like me."
This veil can be penetrated, on occasion, but with great hazard. People don't like their assumptions being challenged. This is why standard, plain vanilla, deliberative process, like Robert's Rules of Order, has heavy protection for minorities (at least that is the design. Any structure can be abused. So far. I think I've designed one where abuse would be very difficult, but ... it's unproven.)
It's classic: the cabal will find some defect that can be asserted about the actions of an inconvenient editor or administrator. It doesn't matter what they or their people did yesterday that may have been similar or worse. All that matters is the impression they can create in the immediate discussion.
Rummaging around through Hipocrite's checkered and apparently deliberately confused history (way more socks admitted and proven than Hipocrite lets on), I came across the first pseudoscience arbitration.
I use the term "cabal" loosely. It refers to a constellation of editors, and, one might note, constellations in the sky are appearance, starts that, from the earth, appear to have a certain position. They are typically at vast distances from each other. However, a "constellation of editors" is a set of editors who act according to some roughly consistent agenda, and whose social function is understood better through recognizing this. If editor A and admin B consistently support each other, and editor A gets into conflict with editor C, admin B may be acting while involved if the admin, with tools, supports A by warning and blocking C.
Because there is no clear policy established about this, I did not seek the desysopping of such, only that ArbComm recognize the problem and perhaps issue warnings. However, ArbComm treated my request as an effort to assert my POV, which is how it was framed by the cabal.
I see that Iantresman, very clearly, laid out the problem, which he called pseudoskepticism
. That's not a complete description, but it's accurate. Real skepticism is not attached to the status quo, it is skeptical of it as well. Pseudoskepticism is skeptical only of what is seen as deviant, fringe. On Wikipedia, pseudoskpeticism presents itself as Majority POV pushing, normally. MPOV pushing is recognized by the community in general, when it becomes focused on an issue, as a problem, and ArbComm has, in theory, addressed it, most clearly, as I recall, in RfAr/Fringe science. However, good theory accomplishes nothing if there is no enforcement, and Wikipedia depends on "victims" for enforcement, i.e, for the victims to complain. But victims are usually themselves associated, or can be associated, with a minority PPOV, in this case. So they are vulnerable to charges of minority POV-pushing. Call it mPOV to distinguish it from MPOV.
I do not know the specifics of Iantresman's history, but from the RfAr, I would assume that he took the position that if facts are found in reliable sources, they belong in the project, somewhere (unless they are completely redundant). The MPOV-pushers consistently acted to exclude "fringe" positions, even if they are covered in reliable sources. I saw this when I attempted to work on Global warming
, which I'd become aware of through the early cabal attempts to ban GoRight (T-C-L-K-R-D)
. GoRight had made mistakes, which were amply and thoroughly and redundantly documented, in a highly biased and uncivil way, in RfC/GoRight. GoRight eventually joined a long list of victims of the cabal, and this affair will not be finished until all those victims are identified and invited to rejoin the community, until unjust and unfair topic bans are lifted.
Many of these users will require some kind of support, if they decide to return. "Support" would mean that when they make mistakes, they have someone who has their interests and wikisurvival at heart, but who will also stop them from going to far toward their own POVs. Having a POV is not an offense, and arguing for the POV should not be an offense, provided that the argument stays within behavioral guidelines. To the cabal, that an editor argued for a minority POV was prima facie evidence that they should be banned, and it was often the only alleged offense, that's what I saw in the last ban of Pcarbonn, engineered by JzG, who essentially lied to the community in his request at AN.
Back to the original topic, I followed DR process, quite carefully. My present ban actually resulted from due process action on my part, an element in it was my delisting request at the meta blacklist page, it was cited by the banning admin. That request was in pursuit of the original ArbComm decision at RfAr/Abd and JzG. And it was successful, in spite of attack there by JzG. Wikipedia shoots the messengers.
It frequently shoots them even when it, in theory, agrees with the message. Atren is topic banned as a result of his long, patient, advocacy of sanity in the global warming field.
To the cabal, every action is political, they project their own habits on others, which is not surprising. So if an admin blocks WMC and Hipocrite, as happened here, but does not block Atren, they will attack the admin. There was, however, a difference between the RfA votes of WMC/Hipocrite and that of Atren. Atren's vote was this:
Support I have had significant interaction with this editor in the "topic area which must not be named", and while I didn't always agree with this editor, they always seemed to be reasonable and level headed. ATren (talk) 23:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)WMC:
# William M. Connolley (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very pretty signature. Would you mind giving a reason for your oppose? The WordsmithCommunicate 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Somehow I think you're not the first person to use that reply. And I find it humorous still.
(X! · talk) · @879 · 20:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry darling but the police say I can't tell you  William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This  may help you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools to push a fringe POV. Hipocrite (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Care to share? That way other participants can make a more informed decision. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I am topic banned from providing more information. Hipocrite (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Possibly both opposes relate to climate change (see here). The only interaction on either of their personal talk pages that I can find is a notification about this page [link], which S seems to be involved with only for formatting purposes. Perhaps someone else can cast more light on the situation? PrincessofLlyr royal court 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems like an hypocrisy... Diego Grez (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
When did this become a free-fire zone where incivility was tolerated and encouraged? Hipocrite (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Incivility? When did asking for rationale become incivility? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not. The incivility was from Mr. Grez. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
My interpretation is that Diego was making a (rather poorly thought-out) pun on your username, and did not intend to cause offense. sonia♫ 23:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Atren's comment did not raise a controversy or assert a position in a battle, both WMC's and Hipocrite's did, and the pussy-footing continued in the discussion on the Bureaucrat's Noticeboard.
Regardless of intention, the latter two comments were actually disruptive. Some of the disruption, indeed, resulted from questions from the community, but Hipocrite was clearly interested in and attempting to tell the tale, and tried to get admins to agree to unblock him if he responded and was blocked for ban violation. That was an amazing piece of business itself, it could have led to wheel-warring and even desysopping. A prior agreement to unblock someone for an AE block? One admin pointed out the problem. Scott acted to prevent this mess by unblocking, himself. An AE enforcing admin may reverse his or her own decision.
Scott's block itself was probably unwise, unless preceded by a specific warning to drop the topic entirely.
For perspective, I was last blocked from an AE complaint filed by Hipocrite, for a harmless edit that was self-reverted, that caused no actual disruption at all, the only sign it was even noticed was from the Hipocrite complaint. That was a comment on an RfAr where my name and history had been cited by Mathsci, and I had some testimony about that to give, but I elected to do it through a self-reverted edit to the RfAr Talk page, and would have -- and did -- leave it at that. I did not appeal the block because I don't run useless process, even to right some "wrong." I didn't need to edit Wikipedia for the period, that's a trivial loss, if it is any loss at all.
From the history, Hipocrite has caused major disruption, again and again. That the community allowed this to go on is Just Another Sign of Massive Community Dysfunction. It will continue until the structural causes are addressed. These people are just acting out roles set up by the structure.