QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Mon 24th August 2009, 11:59pm)
Darn it, if Connelley gets de-sysopped, it will spoil his chances in next year's Wikipedia Review Dick of Distinction awards pageant.
Otherwise, I think he could be a contender.
Right now, it looks like he may escape with only an admonishment, which is an astonishment, given how blatant some of the evidence is. Besides, I move that the award be given to the admin who has admin status at the time of decision, and a temporary desysop would not disqualify. Last years winner, JzG, wasn't desysopped, but stopped editing almost entirely in May. Unstated reason.
I operate largely by intuition, sometimes I don't fully realize why I did something until much later. My revocation of my voluntary compliance with the topic ban during the RfAr was like that. I didn't think it all the way through, but if I had, I might have done it anyway. I'm famous for prolixity, but, in fact, I prefer a single quick demonstration to a sea of ink, or extensive characters clogging a page display.
WMC had been threatening to block me, up to and during the RfAr, but nobody was noticing., and a threat of block, while involved, is as offensive as an actual block.
Ah, WMC, isn't he cute? He wouldn't actually do it, of course, that would be so ... obviously improper.
But with WMC, WYSIWYG, that's what is actually appealing about him. He would, and he did. It was totally predictable. I did not actually know if he'd do it, but.... shouldn't ArbComm know the answer to that question? And I could have argued the point with any number of words, but one small, harmless edit, and, poof! like magic, the bunny popped out of the hat! Amazing! Never saw anything before like it, a party to an arbitration blocking another party! Unheard of!
Suddenly the cabal solidarity, for a moment, was broken. "He shouldn't have done that." Of course, but, er, why didn't you tell him before he did it? I'd been begging for that for two months! TenOfAllTrades (T-C-L-K-R-D)
, I asked you, as his friend, to warn him. You interpreted that as "conveying a threat." Okay, what if it was a threat? If he enforces his ban, in spite of such an obvious and extended dispute, and given my "threat" to take it to ArbComm, is there a risk to his admin bit? Or not? I begged JzG's friends to warn him for months, before filing the RfC. Nobody did, the only people who warned him, being myself and Durova and a few others whom he did not consider friends, were blown off. Same with WMC, when he blew off warnings, when he wheel-warred with Jennavecia, the cabal laughed with him about how silly these blowhards were. Don't worry, WMC, they will lose interest when they don't get the attention they crave, and, of course, you can always count on our support, and we never lose.
Meanwhile, this morning I woke up realizing why it was essential that I raise the cabal issue. And I posted it to the arbitration proposed decision talk page.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#If_There_is_No_Cabal.2C_please_site-ban_me. (T-H-L-K-D)
Comments there may be in order for some of you. Be nice, but be clear.If there is no cabal, then, it follows with inevitable precision, I should be site banned.
If WP:TINC (T-H-L-K-D)
, I've been opposing, not a set of mutually-involved editors, acting as if they were a cabal, but a collection of uninvolved editors, who properly banned me, and, if I oppose, in content, so many uninvolved editors, I'm POV-pushing and should be topic banned. But because this conflict has spanned many topics and process issues, I should be, if the editors are uninvolved, site-banned.If there is no cabal, I had no case at all,
WMC was simply acting properly under IAR, and was, as usual, confirmed by a consensus of uninvolved editors, in every case, or at least was not determined to have acted wrongly, some discussions were about half positive and half negative, and thus WMC's action was, at least, reasonable.
Thus, rejecting the cabal accusation and setting it aside, the administrators had no choice but to conclude, about me, POV-pushing, disruption, unwillingness to accept good faith advice, offered by so many uninvolved editors, that I should take a flying leap and go away and please, please shut up. Consensus.TINC, TINC, TINC, repeated three times every morning, will keep Wikipedia safe and avoid the tendency to disruptive thinking.
Certain drugs can also be effective, and the combination of drugs and affirmations is never known to fail, it will keep you happy for your entire wikicareer.WHAM!
What was that? My nose is bloody! What hit me? TINC, TINC, TINC. I must have stumbled over a rock, I'd better be more careful. La, la, la!WHAM! WHAM!
TINC, TINC, TINC. How did my edit get reverted, it was sourced! I must have overlooked something, AGF. I'd better be more careful! La, la, la!WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!
My, my, I seem to have been blocked. All I did was disagree with an editor. TINC, TINC, TINC. There, I feel better now, all I need to do is be more careful and never, ever oppose consensus when it is affirmed by such a reputable editor. I feel so good, I'm learning how to handle conflict so well. Just give up when opposed! That's so simple, why didn't I think of it before? Now that I'm off the block, I'll go do Recent Changes patrol, no problem. Make myself useful, that's my motto. TINC, TINC, TINC.
On the other hand, how about WP:TIAC (T-H-L-K-D)
? Nah, that is far too unsettling. If there is a cabal, it might actually be difficult
to solve the Wikipedia structural problems. There is only one deep solution which has been proposed, and we all know what happened to that, WP:PRX (T-H-L-K-D)
, which was crushed even before it was tried, and the crazy editor (literally crazy, that's why he could recognize PRX so quickly) who proposed it was blocked and banned. PRX would institutionalize cabals, give them incentive to identify themselves, allow them to function efficiently, but, even more important, enable the largest possible cabal, the largest faction in the community of editors, or even the entire community that chooses to take a small step to connect with others
, to communicate and express consensus on a truly large scale.
That's way too outside the box, too uncomfortable. Wouldn't that be a paradise for sock puppets? TINC, TINC, TINC.
I've asked ArbComm to definitively rule on the issue of the cabal, as raised, not as re-interpreted to make it into a preposterous claim,
affirming, if it will, that the editors who have long called for my ban are not "involved editors," that there is no cabal, i.e., no mutual involvement through affiliation that would lead these calls to not be "independent," and, thus, the confirmation of my page ban was perfectly legitimate, a consensus of "uninvolved editors" as required by WP:BAN. And thus my work is obviously disruptive because it is upsetting so many uninvolved and unrelated editors. And thus, please, site-ban me,
don't agonize over detailed sanctions, Keep It Simple, Stupid.Or, otherwise, reconsider the whole affair.
The idea that WMC has support is rooted in the idea that the support shown is unbiased, representative of the community as a whole, not merely of a faction. The idea that Abd is disruptive wasn't based on evidence -- bainer had it right, and he seems to have spent more time studying the evidence, as original drafting arb, than any of the rest, even Carcharoth, who can be spectacular. If Carcharoth persists in concluding that I should be banned, I'm history, I'll absolutely shut up, probably permanently. Unless I'm shown a great deal more support than has been manifest, it would take that.
When all that was visible was bainer's proposals, I thought we might actually get a good decision, even if I didn't agree with every detail. Nobody's perfect, including me. I concluded long ago that if someone appeared who was perfect, I would surely disagree with this person, the only question is how extensive that disagreement would be.
I've gone on wikibreak, and, for my personal sanity at this point, and my personal life, this will include posting here for a time, I have to stop peeking. If I'm site-banned, I may return here and participate. In the meantime, if anyone wishes to communicate with me, please use my Wikipedia email or, directly abd, lomaxdesign.com.