Update: AQFK was successful in his appeal.

A Quest For Knowledge appeals his climate change topic ban here.  I don’t have much to say at this time but will track the developments here.

 

Update: As predicted ChrisO (a.k.a Prioryman) had his climate change restrictions lifted.

With all of the slight of hand and shifting of accounts to hide one’s past at Wikipedia there is sometimes a need to keep a record of who’s who.  For those who remember him, User:ChrisO chose to vanish rather than be topic banned by the Arbitration Committee in the Climate Change arbitration case.

So for the record, this edit establishes that ChrisO’s account was renamed to User:Vanished user 03 as does the history for that user.

There is some additional background on ChrisO on Wikipedia Review, which includes a reference to this sock puppet investigation against Vanished user 03.

So as we can see from the above information, it is widely recognized that User:ChrisO is now editing as User:Prioryman.  User:Cla68 has documented some of the irregularities with respect to ChrisO having invoked the right to vanish here.  To prevent deletion of this information I will reproduce it here:

Evidence presented by Cla68

Current word length: 290; diff count: 61 (limit: 50). Please reduce your evidence submission to fit within the appropriate limits.

• Prioryman was active in the Cirt RfC, especially in casting aspersions upon and bollocking other editors: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
• He appears to have become involved after the dispute spilled-over into the DYK forum, where Prioryman was an active participant: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] Here, Prioryman should have revealed his prior involvement in this subject area then accuses the other editor of having an ax to grind begins a campaign on behalf of Cirt [31] [32] [33] [34]
• Prioryman then became involved with the Santorum neologism article: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
• Prioryman then attacked an essay Jayen and other editors wrote in response to Cirt’s editing of the Santorum article: [41] [42] campaigning to get it deleted then changes mind after links to Cirt are hidden [43] (check edit summary) [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] Prioryman conducted an experiment which he said discredited the Wikibombing theory
• This, this and this appear to be false statements.
• Last year the Committee noted at ARBCC that ChrisO (Prioryman’s previous account) was sanctioned in four previous ArbCom cases, including being banned from Scientology related BLPs. ChrisO, on or around 30 August, invoked Right to Vanish (RtV). The Committee noted that ChrisO had invoked this right while sanctions were being considered, and topic-banned him from climate change articles, apparently making that the fifth ArbCom sanction that ChrisO has received.
• ChrisO started an alternate account, L’ecrivant, on 30 August, the same day he invoked RtV. Apparently, the Committee only found out after this abusive sock was blocked.
• This shows that ChrisO was operating his old account under a new name at the same time he was operating L’ecrivant. The account was subsequently blocked.
• The Prioryman account was started in November, and, for unknown reasons, was allowed to continue editing by the Committee See the log summary.
• When the request for this case was made, Prioryman appears to have lied again.

So here we have a user who has been sanctioned in 5 separate Arbcomm cases, who has abusively used sock puppets, and who is violating the clearly documented behavioral guideline and community norm that:  Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning.

Now for those not familiar with ChrisO he was firmly entrenched in the AGW alarmist camp and loosely affiliated with “the group who cannot be named,” or TGWCBN for short.

ChrisO seeks to have his Climate Ban lifted!

So with the above well understood we can now see that fresh on the heels of Cla68’s request to have his topic ban lifted having been denied the user formerly known as User:ChrisO is making his own similar request.

If the arbitrator’s initial comments are any indication he can look forward to a swift and complete lifting of his sanctions:

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I will instruct the clerks to keep a close eye on this request, as Prioryman states in his request, folks who under sanction in this area are banned from commenting on this request. I am neutral, leaning oppose on the request, but I’m willing to listen to comments either way before I make a formal “decision” on which way I’d go. SirFozzie (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment we’ve used audited content as an indicator for lifting of topic bans, so a Good Article is a good notch in one’s belt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Willing to consider this; if things don’t go well, the existing general sanctions would probably be sufficient to address issues. Risker (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
• I would support a motion to vacate Prioryman’s topic ban. AGK [•] 13:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I have no particular problem with lifting either this or the other extant historical sanction, which seem to me to be more trouble and more drama-provoking than they’re worth. It is not as if this editor will escape scrutiny in either area so if the event that there are fresh problems in either topic area, they can be handled perfectly well by discretionary sanctions.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who is under sanctions in this area is banned from commenting on this request?  That’s a new one on me.  Typically dispute resolution discussions are exempt from such bans.  I guess when there are climate change biases to be shored up those norms are no longer in play.

We’ll keep an eye on this case as part of our on-going efforts to show how the bias is being maintained, but the outcome in this case is pretty much a lock.  He will have his sanctions lifted, as will anyone who supports the climate change alarmist views.  I think people can see the pattern emerging in these cases.

UPDATE: The final version of Cla68’s request is here.  As predicted his request was declined.

I periodically check what is happening over at Wikipedia w.r.t. Climate Change and the politics that appear there.  There have been a number of people who were topic banned in the most recent Arbitration Case on Climate Change.  Slowly people have been requesting lifting of those bans on a case by case basis.  The results are both predictable and ideologically biased.  No surprise there.

The current case involves User:Cla68 who got caught up in the climate arbitration after he had attempted to improve the Climate Change articles in much the same way he approaches his editing elsewhere on the project: by following the rules, seeking consensus, and most importantly seeking to keep the articles neutral.

Well as anyone who has followed the Wikipedia wars over climate change knows, seeking neutrality puts one directly in the sights of the ideologically driven climate cabal.  This is how Cla68 found himself in his current predicament.

I believe that Cla68 is not even a denier of AGW, nor were most of the people who received topic bans, but I believe that he is the first who would have been called a skeptic to seek the lifting of his ban.

As I have noted in previous posts the ideologically driven alarmists have remained true to form as various people have sought the lifting of their bans.  Using User:William M. Connolley as an exemplar for all such individuals we can see the insidious manner in which the prevailing bias is maintained.  As I have noted earlier WMC has been uniformly supportive of the lifting of the topic bans for like minded individuals, whereas he continues to reject any efforts to allow even neutral editors such as Cla68 to return to editing the topic area.  Even those who supported his own return.

So once again the bias is laid bare for all to see.  You cannot trust the Climate Change articles on Wikipedia to provide an unbiased view of the topic because only the ideologically pure AGW supporting editors are able to contribute to the encyclopedia that “anyone can edit.”

Not content to simply let the arbitration committee attend to their own business, WMC seems impatient to help get other ideologically aligned editors freed from their restrictions vis a vis climate change topic bans.  <snark> He’s just being helpful, I’m sure.  He has no ulterior motives in such cases. </snark>  And just to keep things interesting, it seems Tony Sidaway and Mathsci are also in favor of letting Scjessey loose on the climate pages again.  Who would have guessed?

The systemic bias continues and gains momentum unabated.

Well the flood of appeals is likely to begin.  The second has already appeared.  This time around it is User:Scjessey who seeks to have his binding voluntary restriction lifted.  Anyone who follows along will remember that Scjessey lies firmly within the ideological perspective espoused by “the group who cannot be named,” or TGWCBN for short.  Given this it should come as no surprise to anyone that WMC has shown up in support of lifting Scjessey’s restriction while simultaneously opposing any blanket amnesty which might include any of the climate skeptics who have been banned.

So it appears that WMC plans to be selective in his support for the lifting of any bans as a means of further skewing the ideological makeup of the editors allowed to contribute to climate change pages. All of this has happened before, and all of it will happen again. It is one of the ways the bias on Wikipedia is maintained.

This is, sadly, a transparent move on WMC’s part, but one worth noting formally none the less.

A snapshot of the motion and voting can be seen here.  Effective immediately WMC is again allowed to edit climate change articles but he remains “prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably.”

So the oligarchy’s favored editors are now be set free to continue exercising their previous control of any article that falls under the rubric of their single purpose for editing at Wikipedia.

This result is neither surprising nor in the best interests of the project.

I thought William was crazy for wanting to be unbanned, and told him so. In the unlikely event his appeal is granted he’ll have flocks of admins, partisans, and partisan admins circling to look for the tiniest misstep. (Cooler heads than mine agree on at least this point.) Someone will haul him before AE for not saying “please” is an edit summary or similar nonsense and he’ll get blocked, which will justify Arbcom’s locking him back up and throwing away the key. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

via This Diff

As I was discussing in email with Count Iblis, the phenomenon being described by SBHB is a common technique which is used to get people banned.  Just review the arbitration enforcement proceedings related to Abd for a fine example of how every little and ridiculous opportunity is exploited to seek a sanction until something sticks and those that do stick add up over time.  SBHB is familiar with this technique because he and MastCell have seen it employed numerous times against any editor who seeks to improve the NPOV on the climate change articles (i.e. by expressing anything that could be interpreted as supporting a skeptical perspective no matter how well founded it might be). The group seeking to use the tactic in such cases shall remain nameless. I shall begin referring to this group as “the group who cannot be named,” or TGWCBN for short.

SBHB’s comment is misplaced because it will never be used, or at the very least will never be successful, in the case of WMC.  He will be immunized from any effective use of the technique by TGWCBN.  Just like TGWCBN came out to object to any consideration of removing my ban they will come out in support of any action against WMC and thereby derail any such efforts. It will be no different than what we are seeing now with TGWCBN coming out in support of letting WMC begin editing climate change articles again while at the same time objecting to any lifting of sanctions against their perceived enemies (e.g. such as myself).

I have been following along with WMC’s arbitration amendment request discussed just below.  It seems some little known sockmaster, BookWorm44, has been giving WMC a bit of a prodding based on his editing at the Journal of Cosmology.

After typing in a Google search suggested by one of BookWorm44’s IP edits at a DRN discussion about the whole mess I came across the following quote:

Michael Jankowski says:

March 6, 2011 at 4:00 pm

The Journal of Cosmology is about as reputable and “peer reviewed” as Real Climate.

via Skeptical science: meteorite aliens bring out the armchair experts | Watts Up With That?.

I found that quote humorous given all the on-going hoopla over the reliability of the Journal of Cosmology which is, in deed, quite a piece of work to say the least. That quote and the article it appears in are proof positive that climate skeptics are superbly adept at spotting Cranks and Charlatans!  They’ve identified two suspicious websites in one comment.  🙂

For anyone who follows the climate change debate and how it plays out on Wikipedia the news that William M. Connolley is attempting to have his ban lifted should be of particular interest.  Since his ban the environment on the climate change pages has improved considerably owing largely to the elimination of his caustic attacks on other editors who don’t particularly share his extreme and exclusionist philosophy.  The neutrality of the climate pages has begun to improve since his ban and reversing his ban would only serve to reverse that positive trend.

Of course his usual allies are piling on in support of lifting the ban whereas they were more than happy to pile on to insure that I had no such good fortune.  Such is the state of things.  If the climate change pages are better off without my input they are most certainly better off without the caustic atmosphere WMC so frequently engenders.  Removing people’s comments.  Insulting people in his edit summaries and elsewhere.  Skewing the neutrality of the climate change content to promote his myopic views.  None of these are good for the encyclopedia and few have done more to harm the reputation of the climate changes pages on the project than has William M. Connolley.

The discussion will be ongoing here.  If you are so inclined I encourage anyone with an opinion on this matter to express it there.

If memory serves, at the time of his ban the Arbitration Committee expressed the strong sentiment that as a condition of having one’s ban reversed they would put a premium on subsequent work which lead to moving articles in other areas to Featured Article status.  If my memory serves correctly then one has to ask the obvious question, how many articles has William successfully moved to that level of status?  I don’t know because I have not been following along that closely, but I suspect the number is 0 (zero).  If I am wrong please correct me in the comments.

Assuming he hasn’t moved any articles to featured article status since his ban, and given that he presumably remains a caustic influence when it comes to climate change topics, why then is it in the best interests of the project to lift his ban?  If he wishes to contribute to the project let him continue in the small way that he has since the ban.

OK, so maybe it isn’t actually a news flash.  I haven’t been paying much attention lately but a little birdie just pointed me to the following:

• (cur | prev) 17:13, 5 June 2011 Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) (35 bytes) (had it) (undo)
• (cur | prev) 17:12, 5 June 2011 Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) (19,505 bytes) (→Change to discussion of fundamental mechanics: had enough) (undo)

Which was an interesting turn of events.  He will be sorely missed.

(For all of Boris’ friends out there, don’t worry.  He hasn’t really gone anywhere.)