User talk:William M. Connolley

	To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X.
	I've decided to start an "article in need of attention of the week" (or day, or month, depending on how many come along). The first one is suitable for septics and greenies alike: Runaway climate change. Don't discuss it here; do it there. As an alternative, pointless rumble of the week is Fred Singer.
	This is a Happy Talk Page. No bickering. Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. If you're here to talk about conflicts of interest, please read (all of!) this. You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once. Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question.
	My actions Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions

The Holding Pen

Secret trials considered harmful [Well, you might hope so]

Well, I've read the evidence: general impression is that this is revenge by DHMO's friends for his RFA failure. Why? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And now I've read the judgement. And it seems to me that arbcomm has run itself off the rails. It would seem that they've got themselves infected by the bad blood from DHMO's RFA. So:

• Given the sanctions, which are more humiliating that restrictive, the case was clearly non-urgent.
• There is a good deal of interpretation and selective quoting in the evidence. I don't see any eveidence that OM was given any opportunity to respond, and that is bad (looking at OM's page, I think this response [1] from arbcomm [FT2] is revealing: when asked directly if OM was given the chance to respond, the reply is weaselly).
• I'm missing the result of the user RFC that obviously the arbcomm insisted on being gone through first. Could someone point me to it?
• Could all these people please get back to the job of deciding the cases validly put before them, most obviously the G33 and SV/etc ones

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, whatever the actual substance of the complaint: I'm deeply concerned about ArbCom (or unspecified parts of it) trawling through a years worth of contributions, selectively quoting parts that support a certain point of view, assemble all this into a large document, and without further input from the user in question or from the community issue an edict from above. And for good measure they (?) declare a priori that an appeal is possible, but will be moot. Well, maybe it's acceptable because, as we all know, the committee is infallible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I admit, my prior opinion was that arbcomm is generally slow but usually got the right answer. In this case, I'm doubtful. BTW, I'm almost sure I had a run-in with OM once. Can anyone remember when/where? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In case you have not yet noticed: This seems to be deeper. [2]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Holy @#%$! I was wondering how all of them took leave of their senses at once. R. Baley (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

!?! That looks bad William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this some sort of hallucination?????? WTF??? BTW, you did run into me, because you blocked someone in a manner that I felt unfair. When I found out you are/were one of the "good guys" on global warming, I had mixed feelings. Now, I feel safe that you're watching over the article, especially since Raymond Arritt is gone.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This whole notion of "good guys" and "bad guys" is a seriously poisonous and harmful way of seeing fellow contributors. It encourages the worst excesses and does not lend itself to reaching consensus with the dark side/evil ones/whatever. Orderinchaos 16:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to think that the people reverting vandalism might be considered "good", and the vandals "bad". Perhaps thats a bit too old-school, and you prefer a more nuanced approach? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking William's interpretation of good and bad editors. However, I consider NPOV vandals to be vandals too. Yes there is a nuance to all of this, and that's the problem. It's difficult.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So whats going on?

Most discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Orangemarlin and other matters, it seems.

Presumably someone will be along to sort out this car crash at some point. In the meantime I've been trying to see whats going on, and I've found...

• As we know, KL has repudiated FT2's postings [3]. But [4] rather suggests that secret proceedings were indeed going on.
• tB has "temporarily" blanked the page [5], which is nice, though not as good as "permanently"
• Jimbo has weighed in, saying basically "I haven't got a clue whats going on" [6]. Later updated to the Arbitration Committee itself has done absolutely nothing here [7], which does rather suggest FT2 acting alone in acting, though doesn't address discussions.
• CM is cryptic [8] turns on the interpretation of "formal" in "formal proceeding", a semantic point that is not vacuous
• JPG says its miscommunication [9] and begs for patience [10] but confirms the secret case [11]
• FN thanks us for our patience [12] as does Mv [13]
• Jv appears to endorse FT2's version, adding the OM case to those recently closed [14] and posting the result to ANI [15]. How does Jv know this is the will of arbcomm? And interesting question, which I've just asked him, and which he is studiously ignoring.

Other arbs appear to be far too busy to deal with trivia of this type.

So its hard to know what *has* happened. But clearly its not just FT2 running amok, or the other arbs would say so. My best guess is that secret trials (discussions?) were indeed in progress and that they are too embarrassed to admit it; and that there is some frantic behind-the-scenes talking going on to try to get a story straight.

• CM [16]. The statement is bizarre and is going to leave a lot of people (including me) unhappy. It looks like "it was a regrettable miscommunication, please don't ask any more questions" is going to be the line.

William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC) & 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What stuns me is how any arbitrator thought that allegations of uncivil behavior (however true) needed to be urgently addressed in a blatantly out-of-process manner while a case of full-bore socking by a repeat offender, resulting in high-profile articles being locked for weeks, was allowed to languish. Hopefully the committee realizes they cannot put the business of Arbitration on hold to focus solely on this drama, and will continue the voting. - Merzbow (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yup, still baffled by that one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like the official line is it all ended happily ever after [17], nothing to see, move along here William M. Connolley (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

And FT2 is terribly busy [18]

Hmm, so... it all ended happily ever after and everyone forgot about it? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten. Who knows if it will happen again or is happening now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FT2 is back secret activities. I can't believe it.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has closed and the full decision can be viewed by clicking the above link. Both Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) & yourself are indefinitely prohibited from taking any administrative action with respect to Giano II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), or edit wars in which Giano II is an involved party.

Furthermore, please note that the temporary injunction in the case now ceases to be in effect.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 03:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcomm at its worst: a feeble wimp-out and a waste of everyones time. But thanks for letting me know William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm here: 2008-10-02 Block log); 23:08:48 . . Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (c'mon, for Giano this was very mild, and we can't bully people with blocks into writing more kindly). Apparently [19] is not incivil; and we have an explicit double-standard for G William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your greeting and helpful instructions

Mr. Connolley,

Good day.

Thank you most kindly for your greeting containing Wikipedia overview information and useful instructions as well as providing the proper means of making a request for reinstatement of a deleted link.

Regrettably, while I felt my appeal to the admin associated with the link deletion held merit in its reasoned arguments, the outcome was not in my favor.

Noting that the last, and apparently only thread entry on the Port Jervis, New York talk page was in November 2007, I hold little hope that it will assist in fulfilling the action I am requesting. I will, nonetheless, give it a try.

Thank you again. Your kind gesture made the surprising and confusing result that arose from my attempting to bring a matter of justified concern to the attention of a decision-maker in a formal manner, rather than simply re-entering the link myself and doing in turn that which had been done to me, easier to bear.

Regards,

PortJervisNYcom (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Current

Scibaby

When blocking Scibaby, you really do need to file an RFCU and have a checkuser come in and (1) drain the swamp of any other socks, and (2) and long-term block any IPs he's used. Otherwise, more socks pop up and it becomes harder to retroactively undo all of their edits (because there are more interevening edits). Raul654 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Normally I don't bother. Will try to remember in future. Are you standing for Arbcom this time? Please do William M. Connolley (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to stand for arbcom - I really, really want to wrap up my phd in the next 18 months and that really does cut into my Wikipedia time. If I were to run, I'd end up being idle most of the time. Raul654 (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame. I think they need some help, and some solid competent people with bottom William M. Connolley (talk) 13:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"some solid competent people with bottom"????--BozMo talk 14:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Jack Aubrey sense William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley was inducted into The Hall of The Greats

On January 2, 2009, User:William M. Connolley was inducted into

The Hall of The Greats
This portrait of Robert De Niro was dedicated in his honor.
David Shankbone.

William - famous scientists is one area I have ignored, and one reason we likely have never crossed paths. I dedicated this photo of De Niro for all the work you do on this important area, one I am of no use to, but one where even I know what good work you do. --David Shankbone 02:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you very kindly, and apologies for taking so long to respond. I'll have to live up to it now William M. Connolley (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

These dedications are for the totality of edits already made. You wouldn't need to make another contribution, and it would still be just as appropriate. Of course - keep editing; we need you! I wish I had something more suited to your area of work, but I thought De Niro was a good compliment. Who doesn't like De Niro? Happy New Year. --David Shankbone 20:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Clint would be my option... any way, good work!

Gipset (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ed Trice article

Hi,

Is there anything more you can do about the COI-ridden edit war that is the Ed Trice article? We still have GothicChessInventor (talk · contribs) and the mysterious Octogenarian 1928 (talk · contribs) constantly hammering home blanket reverts. Any advice/intervention appreciated! Regards, Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

EJ has blocked GCI for 24h for WP:COI, which will hopefully bring home to GCI that we really do mean at least some of our rules. Meanwhile, O1928 is mysterious but, I would now guess, probably a real person. His latest revert [20] doesn't look too serious. As to advice: keep up the good work, I'd say, especially your exemplary efforts to work this out on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

After returning from a wikibreak of a couple of years I've been having a look round some contributors whose work I used to admire and I'm pleased to see you're still going strong. So here's a barnstar for defending the absolutely crucial topic of climate change from the utter bullshit that gets hurled at it by Wikipedia's less informed souls. You are a huge asset to the project and you must have the patience of a saint. Keep up the good work! — Trilobite 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC====)

Thanks for the praise; and welcome back yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 11:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 2

Provisionally scheduled for February 28. Comments welcome, & seeing you there even better! Dsp13 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have come last time but I forgot. Maybe I can do better this time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The <div> tag and Cascading Style Sheets

The <div> tag is part of the HTML standard, and in essence lets you group things logically in a HTML page. Since different user agents have different needs and treat the data differently (e.g. a screen reader for the visually impaired, a bot or a normal browser like Firefox) the rendering of elements and the logical structure has been separated into two different languages: HTML and CSS.

HTML is supposed to structure the document logically while CSS is used to change the visual appearance of a page. A website usually only has one or a few CSS documents (style sheets). Many HTML documents can then share the same style sheet, providing consistent formatting across the site.

The div element has two attributes, class and style, that are linked to the style sheet. The class attribute determines what "class" the element belong to. It is then possible to define a default style for elements of this class in the style sheet .

The style element is what's most interesting here though, it lets you override the default style of an element. So the part within the style="" is actually CSS.

W3C (website) is in charge of the CSS standard and it can be found on their website. Unfortunately, the dominating browser sets the de facto standard so things might not work as expected or even be implemented yet.

The W3C specifications aren't particularly good for learning but they are good as a reference. What you are looking for is probably: [21].

If you search the webb for CSS you will find countless examples and tutorials. Quick Googling turned up this for example: [22].

I took the liberty to modify your div tags on this page as an example, feel free to modify and revert as you like. I hope this is somewhat helpful at least. :)
—Apis (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! William M. Connolley (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

...and blogs

We've noticed within the tropical cyclone project that similar issues come up every few months/years. With people coming and going from and to wikipedia over time, similar issues are going to continuously crop up. Since I'm chatting with you all for the first time in over a year, I was wondering what your policy within the GW articles concerning blogs was. I was quite certain that all blogs were verboten because they are not peer reviewed, but I've noticed within the GW talk pages over the years you sometimes allow blogs. I ask because it's been coming up within the TC project as of late. Just curious. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the great blog wars. You're somewhat asking the wrong person, because I just know what's reliable and not, and I use it, and someone else can worry about the WP:RS issues. To take one concrete exmaple, we've decided that RealClimate is a RS, on the grounds that it's a blog written by professionals to high standards. We may allow a few others, I forget which (did you notice any others?). Sometimes it depends what they are a source *for*: for the opinions of their authors, clearly they are fine William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

75.47.x.x

You blocked 75.47.147.2 for incivility, but it seems that any incivility is on the other side. Both sides were edit warring somewhat equally, though 75.47.x.x has more of a history. --NE2 22:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I f*ck*d up. Fixed now. I'll probably block for 3RR though William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for the note re hopping William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI - that user just got back from a "3 month block" of 5 months for incivility and block evasion. You may want to get the whole 75.47.0.0/16 range - that is what we had to do, plus blocking several open proxies and globally locking the User:I-210 account to get him to stop. The account associated with this user is User:I-210 (apparently the user forgot about this after their block). --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't done a range block, so I'm not going to try just before bedtime. Feel free to do it yourself, if desired. I'm more inclined to semi protect the affected articles, if there aren't too many William M. Connolley (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it. But basically what you would do (for future reference) is use the range block calculator and just enter that into the "user to block" field. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. You did see the comment from Alison about collateral damage from an over extensive range block? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I probably did. But I'm not really sure what to do about that - this is a disruptive user, and such an extensive range block is necessary to keep him off Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

One reason I tend to prefer semi (the other being afraid of range blocks :-). Anyway, if someone comes complaining about the range block I'll point them at you :-)) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Glider/gliding

Hi, I'm having a lot of trouble over at glider. It's basically an edit war.

The problem is that glider is written so as to be about sailplanes only, but the term glider is much wider than that, things like paper aeroplanes are termed glider, as are hang gliders and paragliders and the space shuttle etc. etc. There's also historical stuff about gliders, sailplane gliders weren't invented till about 1940 or so. I personally think this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, and there's a major NASA page about gliders that pretty much backs me up and other print sources, I've never seen them define it narrowly unless they're only about sailplanes.

The problem is that some people that appear (IMO) to be sailplane pilots are trying to force the article to only describe sailplanes; in particular User:Jmcc150 admits to being an instructor and has written a book on it. They keep claiming that I'm not editing to consensus, but essentially, consensus says you're supposed to agree on what reliable sources say, but they're using it as if it meant 'we get to vote and what we say is true' and they don't have any reliable sources either i.e. it's pretty much wikiality.

I tried a few things, I tried splitting off sailplanes from glider and created a glider (aircraft) article, but Jmcc150 and Rlandmann renamed it to unpowered aircraft and then reverted it all back. It turns out that unpowered aircraft essentially cannot be referenced, there's no major reliable sources on that at all that I could find, and in any case unpowered aircraft covers balloons and kites and gliders as well, and the article is now almost empty. So essentially they deleted glider (aircraft).

Then I tried writing glider to be mostly about sailplanes, and put in other glider types as subarticle summary style but they reverted that under 'consensus'.

I personally think that what they're doing stinks to high heaven, but then I guess I would think that being on the opposite side of an issue. ;-)

Do you think you could take a look, it's quite complicated, but I liked the way you handled g-force which was also quite complicated.

I would do an RFC on it, but I don't think they'll do anything anyway, for them it would just be further stalling; I've been trying to get sense out of them on this for 2 months now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The current state seems to be glider linking at the top to disambig page, and containing sections for comparison to hang gliders etc. Which you don't object to [23]. But you don't like including a link to unpowered aircraft. It seems rather parochial to define a glider by the FAA defn so prominently - I don't care for that. I see a lot of discussion there, far too much for anyone to follow, with you generally in the minority. You seem to be quoting vast slabs of policy, which is generally a bad sign William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for it either, but I didn't have much choice, To try to scope the article according to his COI, Jmcc150 literally went to the point of misquoting a reliable source to try to give the impression that the source said what they wanted it to say. He even edit warred to remove the fact tag when I put it in. Basically, pick a policy, they're violating it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR? No, thought not. So lay off the hyperbole, it's really not helpful. You replaced an international defn with an explicit invocation of an American defn. Obviously you chose to do this; but I can't see why William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The definition is much the same everywhere in fact, with a few subtleties, he's trying to define 'glider' as a sailplane (although ironically he hates the term sailplane). The FAI is purely a sporting organisation and their definition is only a sporting definition, but the term glider is used much more generally than that. The space shuttle is a glider, hang gliders are gliders, paper aeroplanes are gliders, military gliders are gliders, paragliders etc. etc. These are not sports by and large. He's trying to narrowly define an entire article to be only and exactly one thing (sailplanes) but all the sources, don't do that, I haven't found a single one. And the FAI are the only one I've seen that define a glider as a sporting term, and even then their definition seems to be inclusive of everything except rotary winged gliders.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And actually, yes, I expect I can find edit patterns that are consistent with them violating 3RR; you don't need to actually hit 3 reverts to be 3RR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Monty Hall Problem

Mv to User talk:Glkanter, because I think it will be easier over there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Idlewild101

Thanks for your arbitration on the Wines articles. Idlewild is now making similar changes to the article on The eXile, again with no discussion in the talk page. I'm not sure if he has a COI or is just not across some key policies. Cheers 03:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Cooke (talk • contribs)

You have your timeline confused. I blocked Iw last night William M. Connolley (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi William - sorry about the misunderstanding. Iw making similar changes on two pages, so it's a bit confusing. I realised I'd put the comment on his User page rather than his talk page by mistake, but when I went back it had already been deleted. There's an ongoing discussion about this inclusion on the Wines page on the BLPN, sames issues, but the determining one here will be weight. Any admin involvement there would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Richard Cooke (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Connolley,

I'm sorry that you had to get involved in such a nasty business as this, but I guess that we're all just doing our little bit according to our best lights. I'm afraid I don't understand why you consider the current Wikipedia:BLPN#Michael_Wines discussion on this matter to be irrelevant, and that the 3RR BLP exception does not apply. Please note that User:Richard Cooke brought the matter up to BLPN, not me, in relation to the Michael Wines article. The first 2 BLPN contributors then said that the material should not be in the Michael Wines article, and that only a minimal mention in the eXile article would be permisable. User:Will Beback added that a fairly minimal one sentence summary might be acceptable.

The only other people to comment are Cooke and user:dsol who has an ownership problem with the eXile [24] and related articles.

Please also note that User:Richard Cooke and User:Russavia who are both editing the eXile article are almost certainly sockpuppets, based upon their common attack style of writing, their common articles, and edits such as [25]. Russavia seems to be claiming something else about 3rr on your pages.

Please also note that the eXile's editorial policy, as quoted by The Independent: "We shit on everybody equally." [26] and that it was a tabloid in all senses, but is now defunct. The reason that I do not engage in discussion with these people is that from experience, I've found that they simply do not discuss matters in good faith.

This shouldn't distract us from the basic question: How is the following

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. In each issue, they paired up the previous week's survivors, who were then compared and analysed. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had a cream pie allegedly made from equine semen flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. Jonathan Shainin of Salon.com confirmed the incident, after seeing photographs of the attack."

consistent with basic Wikipedia policy?

Wikipedia:Blp#Basic_human_dignity "Basic human dignity Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. Wikipedia aims to be a reputable encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly. This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Whereas, the version I've proposed based on discussions at the current WP:BLPN discussion is not considered acceptable?

"In March 2001, "The eXile" set up a single-elimination contest to determine who, in their eyes, was the "most foul hack journalist" in Russia. The winner, Michael Wines who was then the Moscow correspondent for the New York Times, had pie flung into his face by Matt Taibbi. "

I'd personally leave out Wine's name, but in line with Will Bebacks more lient approach I've left it in.

I'll ask that you consider this basic question and edit based upon your consideration.

I know that this might take some time to check out everything, but I'd certainly appreciate it.

Thanks for any help you can provide,

Idlewild101 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on experience of Ra, I'm reluctant to believe that User:Richard Cooke and User:Russavia are socks. Of each other? If you think so, WP:RFCU is that way. As to the content, I'm not going to comment: it doesn't interest me. As to the process: you won't solve this by reverting it to death. It doesn't look to me as though BLP is going to solve your problems; you need to find some way of getting other editors interested. One possibility is to list the article for deletion on the grounds of not-notable William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I said we all try to do what we can according to our own best lights. No major complaints (about you) from my end, but a minor quibble - I think you should take the 3RR BLP exception a bit more seriously and carefully look for the consensus at BLPN. If they are not sockpuppets, they are meatpuppets.

Thanks in any case for taking Wikipedia seriously. All the best. Idlewild101 (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity

The editor says that he/she has learned what he did wrong, will not repeat it and is requesting unblocking. Your call. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

You're nearly right [27]. Apparently it was far too urgent for JPG to resist and he was far too busy to do the obvious; happily N has been taking full advantange of the extra few hours unblock [28] William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Glkanter harassment

Hi - Can you please drop by talk:Monty Hall problem. Glkanter's harassment of me (which I have tried to simply ignore) has gotten to the point of ridiculousness. See, specifically talk:Monty Hall problem#Suggestion to delete portions of the existing Solutions section and talk:Monty Hall problem#First Step Towards Resolving Alleged Ownership Issue. You might check out his recent contributions as well. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a comment. I suggest you don't make a lengthy response to the ownership section; a simple sentence denying ownership will do, if you must say something. Best to leave it entirely William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a short reply to the ownership charge. -- Rick Block (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Muscovite99 block

In regards to User_talk:Muscovite99#3RR, you have blocked him for a week, but when you look at his block log, it appears you have blocked him for 3 months. I don't know which one it is supposed to be, but if the 3 months is in error, you may want to change that. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't mean to be so harsh. Reset to 1 week William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Hello fellow editor. As an administrator, could you please explain your previous edit summary on the article Ozone Depletion as it seemed unclear to an average contributor like myself?.

You stated:

primarily (or other words) SH; swap pix: iconic OH is ant

I looked up for the acronyms that you used and, as a common sense measure searched for Wikipedia: links that curiously redirected me to wikiprojects 'Comics' and 'Ohio' respectively.

Thank you for your clarification. --Loukinho (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit compact perhaps. primarily (or other words) means feel free to choose a word other than primarily if you like. SH: southern hemisphere; pix: pictures; OH: ozone hole; ant: Antarctica William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asking for a word of advice

I do just wonder, how should I act: Im asking you, as an admin: since you've acted on an obvious [violation] on the verge of the edit warring, and the same [[29]] still continues to revert every single edit on Lithuania, what should I do? Fill a request for semi protection, report it to WP:ANI. I really do not know what to do, to stop this, i'm not so good in WP politics. And no, I do not shop for block, just the situation is, well, a bit stressfull. Thanks in advance.--Lokyz (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're welcome to ask. I've replied on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did answer on the same talk page.--Lokyz (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted some comments, and a request that you talk to 85.5, at Talk:Lithuania. Since this is a country article, I would think even wider involvement is called for, if you think 85.5's edits have merit. Novickas (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Piran block

Hi. You blocked me for my edits on Piran pages. For reasoning of that you argued that I've broke 3RR, which is not true. I made only 2 (in words: two) edits int 24 hour period. Not four, not five, but two. Before that I did not been much active on Piran pages. User Yerpo which accused me (falsely of 3RR brake) made more edits (reverts) than I in that period.
You blocked me before any warning (the warning which user Yerpo puted on my page was after my last edit).
So I was (and still am) complitly inocent of any of that accusations.
For all of that I think that I deserve an appology, and deletion of that not needed block. Also, I'm sure that you could have read my talk page and see for all of that by yoruself [30].
I hope that everthing will turn out well, and that adminsitrators in this wiki are big enough to admit theirs errors.
Cheers.--Čeha (razgovor) 22:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you for edit warring, not 3RR. I said this explicitly. You made 3 reverts in 24h and 15 mins, and made (and have still made) no attempt to discuss this on the article talk William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted deletion of one paragraph, which were constantly made by the other user, without commenting it on discussion pages. You just blocked me. No warning, anything (warning which user yerpo putted on my page was after my last edit). So you behaved as jury, judge and executioner. I did not see anything until it was all over.

In the same time, user Yerpo made more reverts, did not discuss it onto the article talk and as result he was not block. You did not use the same rules for us both.

I'd like to resolve this issue before going back onto that page again. I'm afraid that with this kind of behavior I could be blocked for a long time if I spell a word wrongly on the discussion page.

Probably this is an overreaction, but I'd like some reasurence that anything which happen will be objective. Also, I'd like to see, if that is not a problem, where in wikipedia rules stands that allows administrators blocking users without previously warning wiki editors onto a very small pattern behaviour.

Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Warnings are for people who don't know the rules. Experienced wikipedians are expected to know the rules. In your case, you have a previous 3RR block so you certainly *do* know the rules. If you don't want to be blocked for edit warring (which is a commendable aim) then the simplest way is to observe WP:1RR, or for the more noble and zen-like WP:0RR. You may shed your fears in regard to talk page spellings William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

And I did not broke 3RR, did I? I have one 3RR, which after that did not ever repeat itself. Only thing that I want is to be treated fairly, which you unfortunately did not done (my treatment is different than treatment of other user). As for edit warning recomendations that's not my stile. If 3RR is valid than :) Hower if you go through talk pages you will see that almost every of my change is documented on that. Only reason why I did not do so in which case was that other user deleted text (which was putted there by other authors, not I) without valid explanation, nor discussion on talk pages... I'm sorry that you do not see your mistake (or are unwilling to admit it). --Čeha (razgovor) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about editing/deleting others' comments on article talk pages

Hi William, I wonder if you could clear something up for me. Another editor has been deleting others' comments, on the basis of WP:FORUM, on the talk page of an article currently experiencing a content dispute. This is his first deletion: [31]. There are others, essentially removing the same two blocks of text.

I've objected to this, in that it's my opinion that it's counterproductive during a period of fairly contentious discussion on the article's content - but for all I know his deletions are reasonable and appropriate (the guidelines [32] aren't really clear on this particular point). The commentary he's been deleting is rather tendentious....

I have restored the deleted text once, and one of the other editors has done the same at least twice, but he's deleted it again. I'd like to get some guidance on this before taking any further action (or, of course, just letting it go).

See also a short discussion on that editor's talk page: [33].

Thanks! Mark Shaw (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You should restore the comments if you consider them useful and productive. By restoring them, you are effectively endorsing them. Talk pages are routinely abused and freqently clog up with rants, people are far too liberal about what is permitted, since calling censorship is so easy; I don't know if this is true in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, in one case I feel okay endorsing the deleted comment; in the other, I do not. But as it happens, I think we've moved past this - at least for the moment. I do thank you for your input, and will keep it in mind for future use. Mark Shaw (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:TEND editing

You blocked a user for 3RR, and he has returned, and repeated his edits. I have advised the editor in question that this can be viewed as tendetious editing and is frowned upon. The editor has not discussed issues at Talk:The eXile or Talk:Michael Wines, and continues to revert. Can you please do something about this, as discussion should occur, which as yet the editor has not engaged in. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just left a warning message for now. The fault is not all on one side William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

William, I'd appreciate some clarification if you would. You 3RR blocked me a couple weeks ago, while I was in the middle of resolving a dispute with Mark Shaw. I found your actions untimely and unhelpful, but that's not the point now. I found myself in another dispute with him earlier, over the same basic issues, and I see that he asked you for guidance. Should I assume that you two are friends, so that if any future disputes with him arise, it would be reasonable for me to ask you to recuse yourself? Thanks for the clarification. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No William M. Connolley (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

To which question? 68.183.246.93 (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for an opinion

If its appropriate to request this and you have time, would you please check out comments made at Talk:Python_reticulatus#Debate_regarding_length_claims_made_by_various_zoos and Talk:Python_reticulatus#Verifiability. It is my position that I've endured days of personal attacks and incivility from User:Mokele and User:Jwinius.

• User:Mokele has told me "Cry me a river. I see absolutely no reason to listen to a mere amateur. Come back when you have a graduate degree in herpetology. Until then, stop wasting our time" and represents his editorial standpoints as "I don't give a crap if the news articles meet some overly-vague WP rule...we should stick to peer-reviewed scientific journal sources ONLY" and has referred to my good faith edits as "unencyclopedic crap" (all comments at [34]).
• User:Jwinius has informed me that I am "silly", [35], "petulant" , "irritable", "thin-skinned", [36] etc.

I've lost count of how many times I've encouraged courtesy in these users. Perhaps encouragement of good behavior coming from someone other than myself and User:Cygnis insignis might have effect. User:Cygnis insignis's comments on our discussion begin as follows “I've waded through the incivility, bold assumptions, uncited assertions, expletives and other obstruction to this good faith contribution. However this is not the place for identifying this obnoxious pattern of behavior...” (see hidden comments at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Python_reticulatus&action=edit&section=17) Ultimately, this dispute is about a claim made by User:Mokele and User:Jwinius to allow certain content at Python_reticulatus#Captivity that they deem unencyclopedic. Thanks for considering my comments. -- --Boston (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please also note this edit summary by User:Mokele "Put up or shut up, amateur. Show me this mythical "outside arbitration", because you seem to lack the balls to use the talk page anymore." --Boston (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Initial opinion is that J makes an attempt to summarise the issues at 12:44, 12 February, to which you reply unconstructively at 18:56. Discussion soon fizzles out, with apparent ill-temper on both sides, but more obviously on yours.

You then start a new section at 14:59 on the 13th, using verifiability. Its not clear to me which edits you mean. Fairly rapidly, by 20:18, 13 February, you've given up talking. M then makes a compromise edit [37] which you revert and then resume talking, but in ways that are bound to irritate (not "I reverted your edit because" but "your edit must be reverted", etc). You agree that "For this reason, scientists do not accept the validity of length measurements unless performed on a dead or anaesthetized snake which is later preserved in a museum collection" is a good addition, but nonetheless persistently revert it out of the article - why?

There is no chance of this being accepted by arbcomm

William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• [statement by Boston removed. If you want to have another go, please avoid imflammatory language - William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)]

This is no joke or sarcasm on my part: please indicate what part of that other than the quote was inflammatory. I'm trying to understand how I take two days of personal attacks and come off as the villain. --Boston (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just stop quoting stuff from other people that is liable to inflame this dispute. Please try to work towards peace not war. Don't dredge up old grudges William M. Connolley (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, then please see what User:Mokele just wrote at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and give warning or not as you see appropriate. I feel like I'm in the Mirror Universe. Thanks sincerely for your time and energy. --Boston (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

False accusations that I'm a sockpuppet

Dear Mr. Connolley,

Please note that I am not a sockpuppet, and I have never used Wikipedia before. IsraelXKV8R keeps making this accusation on the basis of an old case from two years ago that I have nothing to do with. It is guilt by association without any evidence at all apart from links between all kinds of people who, according to him (see his latest comment on the Dead Sea Scrolls discussion page), have infiltrated or manipulated the national press.

I sincerely hope you will see through these accusations, which are simply aimed at convincing Wikipedia editors to delete the section I added in good faith to the Dead Sea Scrolls article, based on reliable sources (the National Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and Jewish Week).

My section describes, without injecting any opinion of my own, the basic elements of a controversy in which IsraelXKV8R, as I easily ascertained from reading his Wikipedia userpage and the Wikipedia article on his film, is personally involved: he helped create the material (specifically, the film) used in the exhibitions that are the subject of controversy (and his film was specifically criticized by the main critic of the exhibitions).

I did not even mention IsraelXKV8R's involvement in the controversy in my section (which I wrote before I even realized he was involved), yet he has deleted my section 14 times.

I have repeatedly had to respond to his accusations on the discussion page of the Dead Sea Scrolls article, and I would also respond to his latest claims but I have been temporarily blocked from editing because he kept deleting my section and I kept putting it back. I do not even know who "Bart Ehrman" is, and I was not familiar with the Indy Week article IsraelXKV8R refers to, or I would have used it too in my section because it is another reliable source dealing with this interesting controversy.

P.s. I think I should also point out that there are 20,000 students here at NYU, and we have one of the largest Judaica departments in the country given New York City's population of nearly 2 million Jewish people. So it's not surprising if other people at NYU wrote about the Dead Sea Scrolls two years ago. But I'm apparently the only one writing about it now, and by blocking my IP address from editing, all NYU students who use these computers are also blocked, which is not fair to any of us. This is what IsraelXKV8R wants, but he's the one who is personally involved in the controversy. As I said, I did not even mention this in the section I added to the article, but it's my duty to point it out to you, and I hope someone at Wikipedia will consider this case from a fair and neutral perspective and do the right thing with respect to the abusive treatment I have had to endure on account of IsraelXKV8R's obvious conflict of interest.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rachel.Greenberg (here is the IP address I'm writing from so you can see I'm at NYU)128.122.89.86 (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

P.s. the block has now been lifted, and I confirm that I wrote the above and that everything I said is entirely true.Rachel.Greenberg (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A notice

Please note that one of edit warriers ignored your warning at at the talk page of Michael Wines: [38]. As a side note, how do you think, is this a proper way to "greet" a wikipedia newcomer who did absolutely nothing wrong? Biophys (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop shopping thanks Biophys. Digwuren comes along and removes the sourced material, and all but asserts ownership of the article by dictating where info will or will not be located on Wikipedia, and then claims WP:BLP but has stated himself he won't discuss it (right now). That is not how WP works, particularly when there is obviously contention on the article. I have posted on the talk page that discussion needs to take place first, and consensus reached. As to my "greeting", when an editor with the username "Aapple6" removes sourced information from the article "Anne Applebaum", then yes, a standard WP:COI notice is warranted, and a notice was placed on the talk page of the article as well; they are welcome to edit WP, and if in fact that user is the subject of the article, they should declare their COI and discuss changes on the talk page first, so that there is no concern over them removing sourced information. Please, stop wasting William's time. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If William does not care about users following his warnings, this is certainly his business. I only let him know about the problem. You insist that your revert was justified. You greet newcomers with WP:COI messages. Fine. This is your business.Biophys (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The COI message would have been better signed, but otherwise it seems perfectly sensible. Will look at the rest William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Following your report, and noting R's revert, I blocked him for 8h. This was a mistake: he had been discussing, and had not ignored my warning. My fault. However D clearly has broken the warning, and I've blokced him for 8h William M. Connolley (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your greeting and helpful instructions

Mr. Connolley,

Good day.

Thank you most kindly for your greeting containing Wikipedia overview information and useful instructions as well as providing the proper means of making a request for reinstatement of a deleted link.

Regrettably, while I felt my appeal to the admin associated with the link deletion held merit in its reasoned arguments, the outcome was not in my favor.

Noting that the last, and apparently only thread entry on the Port Jervis, New York talk page was in November 2007, I hold little hope that it will assist in fulfilling the action I am requesting. I will, nonetheless, give it a try.

Thank you again. Your kind gesture made the surprising and confusing result that arose from my attempting to bring a matter of justified concern to the attention of a decision-maker in a formal manner, rather than simply re-entering the link myself and doing in turn that which had been done to me, easier to bear.

Regards,

PortJervisNYcom (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand edit wars

I don't think you can be faulted for giving Peter a one day rest for incivility but I do think its worthy of note that two users involved in the complaint, Kjaer and Steve, both tag team on these and related articles and have been guilty of multiple incivilities to other editors. This is all subject to Arbcom and hopefully we will get a ruling o behaviour shortly. It is very difficult to avoid 3RR with them, and their unwillingness to engage on the talk page makes life doubly difficult. Kjaer in particular has placed multiple warnings on various editors pages as an intimidatory tactic. Frustration would lead even a saint to lash out from time to time. Their various statements about editing without consensus are simply not true as Peter's edits have support. Their reversals (which lede to Peter's reversals) were of material currently under discussion on the talk page, a discussion in which they were no engaged. There is a good argument that he was dealing with vandalism and was not guilty of 3RR. When an editor of Peter's scholarship is prepared to put some effort in on an article of this nature, it is inevitable that he will be attacked by the fan club. If he slips over the edge from time to time it can I think be understood. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very difficult to avoid 3RR with them - no, this is not true. It is quite easy to avoid 3RR, if that is your intent. WP:1RR is a good plan. There is a good argument that he was dealing with vandalism - this looks like a very weak argument. The "vandalism" exception for 3RR is very tightly drawn William M. Connolley (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, and I have always managed to avoid it todate, but I can understand the frustration of dealing with tag teaming and fandom. My point was not to dispute the ban, but point to the wider context for future reference. I also think there was a degree of entrapment in play here. I also note, that as in past cases two two editors concerned failed to notify Peter of the complaint. Thanks for your response, appreciated. --Snowded TALK 10:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren's block

Hi. Your input is requested at WP:ANI#Request for a review of Digwuren's block by William M. Connolley. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A mistake; see there William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

User:82.4.220.242

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:82.4.220.242 reported by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper (Result: warned)? Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The ever-lovable spin

Big surprise, he's levelling the accusation that the opinions I garnered on the talk page are invalid because I solicited them: [39]. Please, do you want to set him straight? Anything I say to him goes in one ear and out the other, so I'm not even going to try. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Just for information, you are being discussed on the Wikipedia Review. Thanks. --Eric Barbour (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)