User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff


 * WP:ARBCC,, ,
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley
 * Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, which segued into:
 * Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (And don't miss part II)
 * My comments on the SA appeal can be found via
 * User:William M. Connolley/Arbcomm 2009 elections
 * Climate Change (aaar you young folks). Bit odd: initiated by Tedder with a cast of thousands, amusingly including that evil vandal sinebot. Rejected; overtaken by General sanctions/Climate change probation (which, to be fair, it may have done something to hasten).
 * Climate Change ProbationTechnically, nothing to do with me, but has the word "climate" in it so I notice. Wacky attempt by GR to overturn the probation; rejected with contempt.
 * User:William M. Connolley/ACE2010
 * User:William M. Connolley/ACE2011
 * I'm losing track, but here's the end of the most recent twatting about

They really are fools:

/Stuff I may want to say in the new case

My first RFC: Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley. I won it, good. Now there is an RFA between me, Cortonin and JG Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute. I won this, I think... well they are gone and I'm still here... This has now been clarified: Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2: The one revert parole placed upon William M. Connolley was an unnecessary move, and is hereby revoked. Thats nice; and they even got the decision in just before the parole was due to expire :-)

Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley was less clear. Definitely not a win for me, probably not a win for anyone involved as it turned out.

Interesting. There are limits to incivility on your own talk page  to some peoples surprise. Since it would be odd to put this here and not comment, let me make it plain that I agree with Jimbo's actions.

Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles/Proposed_decision - some interesting principles.


 * []

Climate probation stuff

 * ,, ,

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley
Looks like I need a new section for this. And a new section needs a quote:

To all the friends I used to have yo I miss my past But the rest of you arseholes can kiss my arse

Eminen, as I'm sure you'll recognise. It isn't quite right, as the friends are still there. Suggestions for a better? Maybe ?

More later.

BTW, you may feel free to join in (unless you're one of the Dark Side, of course). Improvements are welcome. Though I should warn you that helping here is liable to Blot Your Copybook. Of course, anything I leave here becomes my responsibility and you may assume I agree with it.

If you don't like reading this page, you might instead be happier reading User:Heimstern/ArbCom or User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration.

Executive summary
This entire case was a waste of time. The correct response for arbcomm was to reject it. Having accepted it, they were then grossly negligent by (a) failing to keep it on time (b) failing to impose meaningful limits on the volume of dross produced (c) failing to read the evidence, which was unreadable, due to b (d) most of arbcomm didn't bother to participate (e) all of which lead to producing a bad judgement.

On Abd
Contrary to what appears to be the general impression, I bear Abd no ill-will. He is a waste of time, true, but so are many people. He wasted vast amounts of peoples time, true, but so do many people. It is not his fault that arbcomm made the error of accepting the case - that is all theirs. He spewed vast volumes of unreadable repetitious words onto the case pages, but again, that is just his nature, you can't blame him for that - the fault is shared (in a proportion I leave them to determine) between arbcomm and the clerk for permitting this to happen. Having made the case unmanageable abcomm then proceeded to produce the wrong answer, and clearly they are entirely responsible for their judgement.

Misc thoughts on arbcomm and its errors
Clearly an arbcomm that can go this badly wrong has a lot of problems; I won't be able to discuss them all. But the obvious flaws are:


 * Jealousy. I don't think they want anyone getting too uppity.
 * Incompetence. Despite their desire to keep Ultimate Power to themselves, they just aren't capable of wielding it. That they cannot do so in a timely fashion is obvious. That they cannot even get the right answer may be less clear to you (though not to me).
 * Opacity. All meaningful communication between arbs is going on behind our backs. This is wrong. Everything possible should be done in the open. The reason it isn't is the obvious: it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
 * Inability to communicate. Rarely, arbs will say something but this is not a meaningful dialogue. It is just a random statement; if it contains falsehoods, the arb will not come back to correct them when challenged.
 * Malice. Hard to substantiate this one, but I think it is there, so I'm going to write it down. Linked to: they do nothing to earn respect, and yet "mark you down" for failure to show respect.
 * Double standards

On the naming of names
Note: it is possible to be in more than one section.

Utterly rubbish
Needs a better name.


 * User:Stephen Bain Too rubbish to really analyse in detail. Posting a proposed decision to the workshop page that was ripped to shreds, failing to defend it, and then re-posting on the proposed decion page is probably his major sin. is an indication of how grossly uncivil he has been.

Foolishness

 * User:Vassyana (gone: )
 * User:Risker (that whole thread)
 * User:Carcharoth (obviously; per V)


 * User:Risker. Flings insults and runs away  when called on it.

Should I stay or should I go?
Or, less cryptically, which of the arbs do I think have made errors so severe as to warrant their departure? Bear in mind that I'm not exactly expecting to exert any great influence here, so if you're on the list don't expect me to come after you. And if you feel lonely there, don't worry, this isn't finished.


 * User:Vassyana While technically true, I see the resulting implications of this finding to be extremely inaccurate. In that context, this is an inappropriate complete exoneration. There is certainly a kernel of truth to the concerns in that there is a certain identifiable group that appears to act in a mutually supporting fashion. While this is often innocuous and for the good of the project, that is not always the case. The most obvious and inappropriate way this evidences itself is in community discussions where outside opinion is being solicited and/or should be heeded. Conduct threads and content policy consultations are commonly overwhelmed by involved opinion and regularly featured involved editors !voting and/or commenting as though they were uninvolved users providing an opinion. While we should indeed waive off [sic] the harsher accusations and extreme language of cabals and meatpuppetry, we should not do so in a way that implicitly endorses negative behavior falling under the spirit of the principles opposing cabalism and meatpuppetry. Several commentators have noted what a disaster this comment would be, if taken seriously. As a minority opinion it is of no great importance for the case result; as an indication of V's judgement it is telling.
 * User:Carcharoth - agreeing with the above.

How did I vote?

 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Carcharoth - oppose "logs; failure to answer G4" (note the rather ironic S138 Support we need greater science focus on WP). Logs will mean actions; G4 is I think Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? - prescient
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Casliber - oppose log; G.4
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Risker - support
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Roger Davies - support

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change
Resolved by motion at Arbitration/Requests/Amendment that: The Climate change case is supplemented as follows: The topic ban imposed on in the Climate change case is modified, effective immediately. William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Discuss this


 * Congrats... and welcome back. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And thank you. I look forward to causing havoc again William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Climate change on the climate change pages! Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)