Connolley starts to worm his way out of his ban Options

[thegoodlocust]

Do you now understand why nobody tries to oppose this faction? Within minutes of your action, you're attacked by the same 4 or 5 editors who have been defending each other for years, including 2 whom arbcom refused to sanction despite the fact that they attacked Lar for months.

Personally I was rather intrigued that Raul decided to jump in with his main account. I suppose he expects people have forgotten his role in the CC articles and now he can come in to fill the "leadership" role William will (or rather should) be leaving.

On a side note, Kirill deleted my request to have my topic ban clarified - he was not amused? It really is a shame, because humor is the natural response to absurdity.

I must admit I do get a great deal of satisfaction not only telling them exactly what the cabal will do, but what solutions would prevent future problems. They are full of themselves, many bodies of this sort are like this, and even when repeatedly shown solutions from the same sources that would've prevented problems they don't have the capacity to see past their prejudices in order to implement them.

I'd run for that accursed body myself, but I doubt I have enough article edits to meet the minimum requirements.

[Abd]

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 [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
This [2] may help you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

and Hipocrite:

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.

[Milton Roe]

Boris seems to be the most reasonable member of GWCabal; I've compromised with him fruitfully more than once.

So long as it didn't happen in a public bathroom.

[Polargeo]

By the way, SirFozzie, as you're discovering, you can't reason with fanatics. Since they feel their cause is just and righteous, they can't tolerate contrary opinions and they hate to lose arguments.

Indeed, Boris has been quite agitated since they removed his bestest buddy. Of course, in a rational decision, Boris would have been removed too, but the activist arbs (Shell and Roger, mainly) would have none of that. Someone had to remain to do WMC's dirty work.

Boris seems to be the most reasonable member of GWCabal; I've compromised with him fruitfully more than once. A few others probably should have been dinged, and they will eventually get caught up in discretionary sanctions.

The community has become fed up, and given a clear mandate to the Arbcom Enforcement bunch to be as tough and draconian as necessary. To quote from the Durova decision, "In cases where all reasonable attempts to control disruption have failed, the Committee may be forced to adopt seemingly Draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the project."

As long as you don't continue to attack or join in with general attacks against editors via Wikipedia Review and then threaten editors with your admin powers "on wiki" (wordsmith's threat) when they complain about the behaviour of people on wikipedia review then we will all get along very well. If you continue that sort of behaviour you will get caught in the vice. Watch Lar he generally manages to stay the right side of the boundary with only a marginal exception or two.

[thegoodlocust]

As long as you don't continue to attack or join in with general attacks against editors via Wikipedia Review and then threaten editors with your admin powers "on wiki" (wordsmith's threat) when they complain about the behaviour of people on wikipedia review then we will all get along very well. If you continue that sort of behaviour you will get caught in the vice. Watch Lar he generally manages to stay the right side of the boundary with only a marginal exception or two.

That was an amusing thread to read just because of Tony's rant against trolls, which provided my favorite line of the decade with this:

"No I don't use Usenet in recent years, precisely because it filled up with ridiculous trolls. "

Wow! Tony aka Sherilyn Sidaway calling other people ridiculous trolls when he goes around online pretending to be a female to have cybersex with men! Incredible.

Anyway, I imagine I could get along well with the climate club in an offline environment. William and I actually have a similar personality (he is an INTP while I'm INT(J/P)) and he'd likely make a good chess buddy. That being said, I tend to go off the wall and lash out at bullies and in response to bullying behavior, and since I perceive a lot of them acting that way, like a gang in many respects, then that will occasionally set me off. Additionally, we all behave differently online (whether we admit it or not) and we often forget that there are real people on the other end who simply disagree on various issues - the drive to "win" is so dehumanizing for both sides.