Well, this is a long case study of WMC's block history. The cat has nine lives, and it looks like he might be running on his ninth or so.
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 19th August 2010, 4:57pm)
That is one amazing block log. Yeah, I've looked at it before! But it just goes on and on. With far less disruption than Connolly -- almost none by comparison -- Scibaby was indeffed and when he socked, considered banned. And so we got the whole Scibaby Monster Sock Farm, over 500 and counting.
Look how many times WMC was blocked and then unblocked because the blocking admin was "involved." What WMC did over and over was block and protect/unprotect while involved. He wasn't blocked while a sysop. Does that mean his behavior improved? Maybe. More likely, not. Rather, sysops don't block sysops, and those that do have a high rate of losing their tools.
I find it amazing that in November 2005 he gets blocked twice, 24 hours, two separate admins. Two months later, he's an admin and is testing the block tool on himself, checking out to make sure that he can unblock himself. (Ottava Rima on Wikiversity last month seemed to have thought I didn't know that he'd be able to do this. Silly boy! I'd read this block log long ago, when it was much shorter! I only blocked Ottava for 2 hours. Would I dream of risking criticism for unblocking myself if it meant waiting only one more hour, and nothing in particular was happening? Only if I thought I was bulletproof.)
No more blocks for almost three years. Then he's desysopped.
So in September 2009, he's blocked. He's unblocked for 12 hours. Unblocked 43 minutes later with the summary: (consensus at WP:AN suggests blocking admin was involved; block therefore inappropriate)
Now, what is the first lesson in the Block Appeal Handbook?
Never appeal based on a claim of bias, for an unblocking administrator will always consider the reasons for the block, not whether or not the blocking admin was biased. Again and again, I've seen unblock templates where the editor screamed "Biased!" -- and where the blocking admin definitely was biased! -- and the block would be declined. And, in fact, that was proper. Only if there were no reason given would it then start to be a reasonable claim. In which case unblock is not based on bias but lack of a justification for blocking. But what happened at AN/I? I haven't looked, but I bet I've seen it a hundred times. The blocking admin became the topic of discussion. This continued.
WMC was then blocked by two more administrators. His friends were getting tired by this time.
Then, May 18, Lar blocks for one hour.
44 minutes later, 2/0, whom I recall as being pretty supportive of WMC, unblocks, with (I think blocking administrator is WP:INVOLVED here - requesting review at WP:AN/I)
In other words, in order to oppose the block, instead of waiting for 16 minutes, 2/0 claims "involvement" and unblocks on that basis. That is blatant bias! There is no way that the issues could have been discussed in that time. And then he requests review. Now, here is what that would mean in a sane system. He's involved himself, but considers there to be an emergency, so he goes for review. If he were neutral, there would be no need for review. Someone else would ask for review. If the involvement is serious enough, even asking for review will not avoid desysop. That's precedent, but ... precedent doesn't mean shit if you've got enough friends, and WMC still had enough. Enough that this whole mess is now before ArbComm, and instead of making decisions based on the Obvious Fucking Facts, they froze the case July 19, and have been dithering in camera since then.
At some point, ArbComm moved all negotiations, it appears, off-wiki. I won't explain how disastrous that is. It means that top-level decisions on Wikipedia are being made where the evidence and real arguments are not being revealed. There are reasons to discuss things privately. But in cases I've examined lately, what should be rare has become the norm. And this is what power does to people if it is unrestrained.
Any arbitrator could blow the lid off of this. We elected arbitrators to represent us, because we trusted them. But ... I'm pretty sure that they threaten each other. Or convince each other that disagreements should be concealed "for the good of the wiki." The opposite is true, and all the literature on open societies and volunteer projects is in the contrary direction. Open disagreement can be resolved and consensus found. Secret proceedings demolish the very foundations of consensus, which is crucial to Wikipedia's mission and foundational approach.
I do know why they do it, though. They do it because the open processes are totally fucked. They never figured out how to provide structure so that real deliberation and real consensus process are followed (they are very similar to each other). And, what I've seen, they don't want to know.
So, while ArbComm hems and haws and dithers and seems unable to even come up with, say, injunctions (i.e., temporary decisions based on an apparent need, but not necessarily proven facts yet, like they could enjoin Lar from certain actions and they could enjoy so and so from this and that, with no presumption of blameworthiness), WMC obviously continues on the same course that caused Lar to block him.
Blocked, then, by BozMo for 15 minutes, (Can be shortened if agrees to behave and says sorry) cause
.. WMC blasts away as soon as he's off the block, apparently. Blocked again by BozMo, set for 3 hours, (Personal attacks or harassment: repeated PA). cause
Then unblocked in only 24 minutes, (reasoned appeal)
. Okay, I'll look at this. I've added diffs to the occasion for the blocks to the previous sentences. (BozMo deleted the edits.) WMC was at this point blocked from editing his own Talk page, so this
is what BozMo would have seen there before unblocking. Nothing on-wiki, but BozMo was looking at an old precedent with Giano. In fact, WMC had now been blocked quite a few times without a huge drama. Other times there was drama.....
And then WMC unstruck again what BozMo had struck. Nobody blocked. WMC escapes again, stay tuned for the next installment....
WMC thanked him for making the "correct decision based on precedent." Which was one of the weirdest precedents I'd seen. Apparently ArbComm is interpreted as having essentially ruled that Giano was block-proof, except by going through ArbComm.... What I saw about the real precedent was that admins had better know what they are doing when blocking Giano, that's all. BozMo had a clear basis, easily seen, it should not have been controversial at all. He was intimidated, successfully.
Next block was by Wordsmith, for 48 hours. No unblock. Extended by Sandstein to 4 days based on violations on the Talk page, talk page access blocked. Sir Fozzie comes in and revises it to original expiration, leaves Talk blocked. Next day, right after the block expires, Sir Fozzie blocks again, indef. (Continued violation of CC/General Sanction on inserting comments to other people's statements.)
If so, SF was baited into a recusal violation. This example was WMC deleting a comment by SF. The precedent is ... don't do that, don't block someone for being uncivil to you, or for revert warring with you or the like. Users who are blocked or who have just been blocked are expected to be angry with the blocking admin, and are normally cut quite a bit of slack. If they arent' defenseless and clueless SPAs, that is. That error was, in fact, what trapped the admin who had blocked Giano. Giano had told him what he thought of him and so the admin lengthened the block. No, no, no! WMC knows this principle. He may have been using it.
WMC continues to revert war with editors on his Talk page. It's debatable if he can do this. My sense is, yes. He has the right to remove comments that are not a necessary part of a block and block review process. He may remove warnings, thus acknowledging receipt of them. But BozMo seems clueless, up against the master.
So, today, Atama unblocked, (Per discussion at WP:ANI, the sanction does not apply to your own talk page.)
That's a technicality! I've always understood that I can delete other people's comments, but not change them in such a way as to change the meaning. I have taken someone's comments, and responded interspersed, with a link preceding it to the original comments, and with clear separation of their text from mine. I have looked at way too many WMC edits this evening, and I'm not clear as to whether or not he violated the ordinary restriction.
WMC continued, on his Talk page, with Sir Fathead
Sir Fozzie is recused on the Climate Change case which could result in a ban for WMC. However, I'm sure, the other arbitrators will not fail to notice WMC's comments. Note, as well, that ordinary editors would be blocked quickly for comments like what he's made.
to the whole sorry mess.
The unblocking admin acknowledges that what WMC did was violating general Talk rules. In other words, this was a pure wikilawyering unblock. The block was based on specific sanctions, which may have been an error. But the substance of the block was correct. Sorry, the officer cited the wrong section in arresting the bank robber, let him go. Of course, WMC isn't a bank robber.
Just a highly disruptive editor who has gotten special treatment for a long, long time, to the point that he is probably the most famous individual editor, as the supposed leader of a cabal, so-called in the media. And by me, of course. That's a big part of why I was put under sanctions myself. For calling a "mutually involved faction" a "cabal." ArbComm apparently wanted to use their own dictionary. One that hasn't been published anywhere. My comments were uncivil because they said that I must have meant something uncivil. Everybody knows that "cabal" means secret collusion. Everybody except dictionaries and me and a few biased observers....
This was considered such a horrible accusation that the case pages for RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley were blanked. Such a horrible accusation that I was sanctioned for incivility and making "accusations" that I didn't provide evidence for. But I provided evidence for what I wrote. Just not for the meanings that ArbComm proceeded to invent for what I'd said, which contradicted what I'd actually said.
Idiots. Yes, Fatheads. I can't say that about Sir Fozzie, I don't think he was on the Committee then. But some surprising people voted for those findings. It's one of the reasons I gave up on Wikipedia.