Beware the Flag of the Rouge admin!

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.

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

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: [1].

If you search the webb for CSS you will find countless examples and tutorials. Quick Googling turned up this for example: [2].

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)[reply]

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

Reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I can help in small ways, though no longer being professionally involved. I wonder if there is an embedded prog taskforce? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current

Ocean acidification

A reader writes:

"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.[31] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.[32]"

I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago [3] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correctly deduced. It was me. It may not be worded well, but I think that it's factually correct. Basically, as well as its other effects on living organisms in the ocean, acidification is also expected (see the references) to dissolve existing carbonate sediments in the oceans. This will increase the ocean's alkalinity inventory, which in turn increases its buffering capacity for CO2 - that is, the ocean can then store more CO2 at equilibrium than before (i.e. the "implications for climate change" alluded to). As a sidenote, it also means that palaeo scientists interested in inferring the past from carbonate sediment records will have to work fast (well, centuries) before their subject matter dissolves away! Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy William M. Connolley's Day!

User:William M. Connolley has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as William M. Connolley's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear William M. Connolley!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! Well thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 07:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double diffusive convection

Bit surprised there is no article on DDC? Has the term gone out of fashion? It was half the course in "Buoyancy in Fluid Dynamics" when I did Part III 23 years ago. --BozMo talk 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember is was a nice demo on the fluid dynamics summer school DAMPT ran. Not sure I would still be confident of writing it up 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have to suggest it to Huppert or someone. --BozMo talk 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one of you two makes a stub, I'd be willing to read up on it and make it a longer stub. Awickert (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a kind offer. I have started here: Double diffusive convection--BozMo talk 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right - I'll get to it (eventually). It's on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II Wheel War RFAR

I undid your edit concerning Bishonen (see 1). Bishonen is not one of the named parties in this request, thus the addition of that difference was off topic and inappropriate. If you feel there is an issue that needs attention please add Bishonen to the case (if Bishonen is related to the case), start a thread at ANI, or start a separate request for arbitration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my statement. I've no idea who you are. If you have some authority in this case to make such edits, please tell me what it is William M. Connolley (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the Arbitration Committee's clerks. KnightLago (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have said so The law of nature excepted, it belonged to the essence of all other laws to be made known to every man that shall be obliged to obey them, either by word, or writing, or some other act known to proceed from the sovereign authority... Nor is it enough the law be written and published, but also that there be manifest signs that it proceedeth from the will of the sovereign. [4] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice quote. I am going to write it down. One of my favorites is Ignorantia juris non excusat. KnightLago (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good motto, though that page, as it must, contains a discussion of Hobbes's point: The doctrine assumes that the law in question has been properly published and distributed and more William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Children's Rights Council edits and the destruction of all links to that website on Wikipedia

The content of the website of the Canadian Children's Rights Council website is very slanted and it is a feminist tactic to use feminist sources as THE source of authority for their edits.

Both WLU and Slp1 have taken control of the Canadian Children's Rights Council webpage and provided false information because they wish to be destructive. They have refused to provide any meaningful discussion on the discussion page. they have also , over time deleted all contant on the article page for Parental alienation and Parental alienation syndrome. For example the records will show that they took off the link to the Canadian Children's Righhts Council list of Canadian court cases pertaining to parental alienation which is

http://canadiancrc.com/Parental_Alienation_Syndrome_Canada/Parental_Alienation_Canadian_Court_Rulings_PAS.aspx

and they took off the link to various scholarly works becuase they were on our website. They include:

http://www.canadiancrc.com/Parental_Alienation_Syndrome_Canada/Parental_Alienation-Myths_Realities_and_Uncertainties-Professor_Nicholas_Bala_SUMMARY_12MAY09.aspx

and news articles that were in our "Virtual Library" when they copied the articles illegally and put them on other websites and then provided them as the linked source on the Wikipedia articles web pages.

Such destruction, done for political purposes undermines good work.

You have placed a lock notice on my talk page and have referred to my reverting copy 3 times in a 24 hour period. Kindly provide the details. I don't get on Wikipedia very often.

The website of the Canadian Children's Rights Council is the most visited website in Canada pertaining to the rights of Canadian children and that is a verifiable fact.

S-MorrisVP (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your question is. Are you unsure why you were blocked? The answer is WP:3RR. Are you unaware of which of your edits were reverts? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the accusation of not substantively discussing on the talk page not only outrageously hypocritical, but offensive (perhaps a little amusing). The "Bala summary" I have pointed out is inappropriate - the study isn't published yet, and this is a convenience link that breaks pretty much reason to not link to a page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umar

Hi! thanks for your comments on the Umar page .Would you be preared to arbitrate there?

The muslims have made the page a mess with sectarianism but it's gone beyond that and become I feel a propaganda page with academic references being ignored.

However the page is at present inconsistent with the academic references. Need someone to make some decisions without partiality.

--Frank1829 (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an arb, but I think I know what you mean. You'll need to remind me again in a few days I'm afraid - this weekend is too busy for me to look now William M. Connolley (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guido

ArbCom is reviewing his contributions. If you have any thoughts about it, please send them to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org Cool Hand Luke 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guido - ah, I misread that as Giano and got confused. Guido: I don't think I've seen much of them. Mostly he argues on talk pages. He appears to be claiming contributions of Global cooling and GeoEng. These are trivia William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle for the world

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation is rather interesting. Naturally, I'm inclined to wonder about the validity of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley. Coren finds the idea of re-considering SB's votes in old cases uninteresting [5], presumably on the grounds that no conflict of interest could ahve occurred. I shall inquire of C directly whether he stands by that.

The issue of Dbiv / Fys / BS's contributions comes up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dbiv shows nothing before [6] but this is very clearly wrong. Where have Dbiv's early contribs gone (are they are yet another account names?). Who, if anyone, can remember where User:Irishpunktom comes into this? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In olden days when a user was renamed, deleted contributions were not re-attributed to the new name. If a deleted contribution was later restored, the old account would appear to have edits. In all of the edits for the Dbiv account, it appears that the pages were once deleted and were later restored. All of the edits you are looking for should be under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fys or Special:DeletedContributions/Dbiv or Special:DeletedContributions/Fys. MBisanz ^talk 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Thanks. You can't remember the bit about IPT can you? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Might be stuff like [7] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that bit of history is well before my time and I'd hope to avoid having to study it when User:MBisanz#Articles written is still so short. MBisanz ^talk 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I now think it was a red herring - sorry for that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately thought of that case when I looked at the editing histories of Fys and Dbiv, one of which ends in the frivolous RFC against you. Trying to hide his identity or not, he should have recused in that case and some others. I think Coren is flatly wrong here. Cool Hand Luke 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I doubt reopening these cases would be helpful (he was not a prime mover in most of them), but I strongly disagree with the assertion that this was proper behavior for an arbitrator. Cool Hand Luke 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, alas, I can't see his vote as being decisive in any of that. Whether he said anything on the private mailing lists I don't know, but from what I've seen so far in the on-wiki logs I can't see strong grounds for asking William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I immediately recognized the problem with Sam Blacketer voting in your case. This was largely the reason that I felt the situation needed to be addressed ASAP by Sam and the Committee. When I learned of the connection, I did some checking of my emails stored in my gmail account. I've checked emails sent to ArbCom and the old private sitting email list. He did participate in discussions about the case, but I did not see anything that showed him pressing for a harsh sanction or pressing for a particular outcome for the case. His comments were just as you would expect of an arbitrator that was weighing his opinions about a case. They were similar in nature to the comments that he makes in all case by private email and on site. So, while worrying, I don't see evidence of an actual problem of undue influence by him with his undisclosed identity. I'm going to do some more checking, and will let you know if I see anything that I think would warrant reconsidering the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Plains2007 socking

Since you were the original admin involved, following your 24 hours block of User talk:Plains2007, this new guy decided to do the same thing. There's a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Neutral_admin_needed, but I wonder if you think a further block or just the puppet and a strong warning about avoiding? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EdJ has given a warning, and that account only has one edit to its name William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

72.10.109.105

Hi, I'm curious on what action I should take with regards to 72.10.109.105. You may remember that this is the user I reported for edit warring prior to the Lebanon article getting protected, and that had been associated with the LebaneseZp account via check user. The user is now edit warring on the Phoenicia article as their IP address and another account, Joetoril, which I believe to be a sock puppet, or a meat puppet at the least (Joetoril only edits the same article the IP address is edit warring over, and only seems to appear when the IP address is on the verge on violating 3RR). Should I file another 3RR (each account has reverted three times in 24 hours), or should I file another check user to try to get the IP address checked against Joetoril, or should I file for a sock puppet investigation, or should I go straight to ANI? Any advice you can give would be much appreciated. ← George^[talk] 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J is a sock, so I've indef'd him. 105 is being disruptive, so gets 48h for now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for taking care of this, but it looks like 105 has now switched to the LebaneseZp account and reverted the Phoenicia article yet again. :\ ← George^[talk] 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LebaneseZp

Hi William. He started again on Phoenicia. Dr.K. logos 23:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-05-28T02:33:35 Icestorm815 (talk | contribs | block) blocked LebaneseZp (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Edit warring: on Phoenicia) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dr.K. logos 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall Problem

Hello William. In February we were discussing on my talk page the Monty Hall Problem vis a vis Morgan's paper. I now have an electronic version of that paper. Please let me know if you have any further interest in this continuing dispute. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you care to send me the paper, I'll read it William M. Connolley (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a Wikipedia e-mail. Glkanter (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Kadampa tradition

Hi William We have been having a decent time on the NKT page, many of the NKT dedicated editors have been resting. Empty mountains has been trying and me too (sometimes!) I thought this article might interest you http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/ YontengYonteng (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like arbcomm finally got bored with them. Meanwhile El Rego is funny - they clearly don't like the Hubboids, but really don't want to be nice to wiki either William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb, could you please look at Atisha's Cooks stuff on the discussion page (and the lengthy ad hom on my owwn talk-I said I wouldnt resort to reporting but his getting more extreme IMO)-he seems really angry at moi because I, along with a couple of NKT editors, are balancing the NKt article.I will accept any judgement you makeYonteng (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He says he has no more to say on your page. That seems like a good idea because the discussion doesn't seem to be very helpful. I'd advise focussing on the edits, not the editors William M. Connolley (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets

I invite you to visit Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lanternix/Archive. You may want to reconsider your decision to block that user User:Azazigoat. --Lanternix (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with A? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with A that it proves I do not use socketpuppets. No one has ever said how or why you think A is a sockpuppet of mine. It was probably just a reaction to people yelling that I use sockpuppets while I do not. So maybe you can clarify why you blocked him/her in the first place. --Lanternix (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean User:Azazilsgoat. That user just happened, with their second ever edit [8], to revert to the version you'd just reverted to. Perhaps this was a co-incidence but I consider that improbable. You are welcome to request a CU on Az if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible block evasion

I saw you talking with User:DonaldDuck. This user who started editing immediately after his block was apparently him.Biophys (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DonaldDuck replied at his talk page. Could you please take a look and decide the best action? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided 1RR is best. Hopefully that will work out William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Was it an official 1RR restriction? If so, it might be placed in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Log_of_blocks_and_bans to let everyone know.Biophys (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't immeadiately obvious why DD is linked to that case William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked a the list of people you've asked, I'm concerned about your quality control. How are you screening responses? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey is posted here. It looks like the survey will fail unless you participate in it. :) Count Iblis (talk) 02:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. "ON WRITING THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA ARTICLE" looks designed for EB type people, not wiki. Looking at the rest it simply doesn't look very relevant to the wiki-process William M. Connolley (talk) 06:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the same impression, and have contacted the author about it. I think that the one of the biggest issues is the questions that go along with "your article"; like you said, more designed for a professional single-author encyclopedia article. Awickert (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to handle this by writing enough text. I claimed Global warming as my article, on the basis of being the 4th-most frequent named contributor, with a whopping 460 out of 13000 or so edits ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I talked to her and she said she didn't mind which article we used to answer each question, just as long as we made clear which article it was. And sheesh - next to you folks, I don't feel like I have any business responding! Awickert (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Yes, the questionnaire was not designed specifically for Wikipedia, rather a range of different encyclopaedias, so it requires flexibility to answer it due to generic wordings and context. And yes, it may a bit hard to capture the wiki process through the questionnaire, but I am hoping to raise that question (and any other relevant point) during follow-up interviews.

To select participants: I looked at the list of articles from the Category: Global Warming and Category: Climate Change. For each article, I checked the History tab and from the revision history statistics, I compiled the list of all users who made major contributions. I am contacting contributors who made major contributions to 10 or more articles on GW and CC. Will also be included in the study are those who have contributed in less than 10 articles, but whose average contribution exceeded 10 edits per article (well, still not done as I ended up with a list of 360 users).

A comment I have already received about the screening approach: I may miss some key contributors to article content whereas users mostly involved in reverting changes/vandalisms may be overrepresented. It was recently suggested that I focus on the “top 10” climate articles and rank the contributors – I may give it a try, if I find a way of defining what the “top 10” are.

And sorry for not coming back earlier to all of you. I now know I have to keep an eye on the talkpage of other users Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you've made a very good selection of people to contact. The most obvious mistake is User:JonGwynne, but there are any number of others on your list who aren't actively malicious, but have just made negligible contributions in this area: User:Gogo Dodo is just one random example, there are many more. I am contacting contributors who made major contributions to 10 or more articles on GW and CC - I don't believe this, unless you've got a very different definition of "major" to me William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at this stage, my definition of “major” is just based on statistical numbers and nothing to do with the quality of contribution yet. But I had to make some arbitrary (not necessary good) decisions on how to go with sampling before getting in touch with you.

May be I was not very clear about how I proceeded. So, to take the example of the Global warming article, I went to the history page and clicked on the Revision history statistics. I checked the boxes so that the statistics is grouped by users and that all minor edits, bots, and anonymous are hidden. The resulting table was simply copied into an Excel spreadsheet to get the basic list of contributors per article. In total, for the 200 or so articles from Category: Global Warming and Category: Climate Change, I ended up with a list of more than 9.800 users who supposedly made “major edits”. For sampling purpose, I only filtered down the list to users who contributed to 10 or more articles + users who have contributed in less than 10 articles but whose average contribution per article exceeded 10 “major” edits.

The 360 shortlisted users are what I call “major contributors”. But as you stated very clearly, my list does not make any distinction between malicious users, users with negligible input and those who really make major contribution to the content of the article.

I know, I will have to look beyond the numbers and really focus on the quality of edits at later stage of the research. Long-term active Wikipedians know what is happening within Wikipedia so, if any of you guys have suggestion, I am really eager to hear it Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to gather some thoughts William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow edit war

User:Miriamw18 has been slow edit warring on Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, removing content that she seems to not like. She has refused all requests to explain her edits, has repeated them twice, and works for the ELCA. You might consider giving her a short block to wake her up to the idea that she needs to stop doing this? Awickert (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warned / advised. Oh, and if *you* would like some advice, I will be clear: I will never stop reverting you until you explain why you are deleting that content is a hostage to fortune :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree, but I've been getting frustrated with POV-pushers lately. Speaking of, my edit summary (if you even read) on solar variation was pointed at D: you reverted POV-vandalism to status quo (albeit an partial truth status quo). He re-reverted to keep the POV idiocy there. Good thing I'm about to be away for a week. Awickert (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Solar cycle? I saw that :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - that's what I meant. I'm sure reading my original edit summary would have been much more enjoyable as it was actually witty and sarcastic, but I didn't want to risk being banned. :-). Just finishing packing up - as usual, can't find a few small but vital things and it's 2 AM here and I'm about to drive across Colorado and Utah... :-). Enjoy the coming week, and good luck with the bees, rowing, etc. Might upload a few nice pictures and send you a link as I'll be in the northern tributaries to the Grand Canyon. Awickert (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to calculate your carbon footprint for the trip :-). Do upload the pix William M. Connolley (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

I blocked Student of philosophy (talk · contribs) for block evasion on your block of 194.124.140.39 (talk · contribs). If this is not in keeping with the intent of your original block, please feel free to modify my block however you see fit, or undo it. Guettarda (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[9] seems clear enough, so thank you for your action William M. Connolley (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [10] Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has form

This must be the slang of some country across the ocean from me. When you say 'has form' at AN3, you mean the person named already has a block record? EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it as just confirming the report is appropriate. (wikt:good form) –xeno^talk 21:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no, Ed was right, I use it in the sense of police / court. I thought it was a commonplace. As in "bang 'im up guv, 'es got form". Like this [11]. Oh yes, or [12] (sense 1, of course :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Cold fusion

William, I appreciate your edit to Cold fusion, which did improve the article over the version as originally protected. However, at the time that GoRight made his suggestion there were two existing polls, with four !votes showing, that indicated a preliminary consensus for the version of May 31 as having the broadest support (though not enough editors have participated yet for it to make much sense.) This version was actually suggested by Hipocrite as a compromise, Verbal had signed onto it, and I had given it almost complete acceptance. I don't think it was right to neglect existing process in favor of some spur-of-the-moment suggestion from someone who had no understanding of what was in the revisions, and who didn't express an opinion in either of the polls.

There is a lot of backstory here, it's really quite a mess. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on the talk page subsequent to your taking action, I had merely meant to offer up another option for the consideration of those who are actually involved on the page and never really intended for it to be acted upon without discussion by those involved. There clearly has been no discussion of my proposal to date, per se, and so it would be hard to say that it has any more consensus behind it than any of the options suggested within the polls ... except perhaps the tenuous consensus it seemingly enjoyed for a 5 day period.

I assume that if the community there reaches consensus on a different and more up to date version that you won't object to switching to that, correct? So I guess we need to wait and see what the polling and the mediation turns up.

Thanks for your quick response even though we may have jumped the gun a bit. --GoRight (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CF is something of a disaster area and until more people take an active interest I wouldn't be too surprised if it stayed that way. I'm not terribly interested in A's opinion, so that he doesn't think what I did was right weights rather lightly with me. I'm amenable to exerting some admin oversight there if I can be useful, but I don't expect to make everyone happy William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"CF is something of a disaster area and until more people take an active interest I wouldn't be too surprised if it stayed that way." - Given all the high visibility actions related to this topic even at the Arbcom level, I doubt that anyone would disagree. One thing is for certain, though, you have taken on a rather thankless job that, in the end, is likely to leave some loving you and others hating you ... barring a miracle, of course. :)

Perhaps a selective cooling off period as you have put into play will allow the less assertive editors there to take a more active interest than they have been able (or at least willing) to recently. --GoRight (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CF topic bans

Perhaps should be logged somewhere, given the propensity for WP:LAWYER etc. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else suggested that, but over the deniable channel of email. Could do; I'm not sure I'm too bothered. If you want to note I've done it, feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was half-way through a post to ANI on the thread started by Woonpton when I lost the lot, got annoyed and went to bed. This morning, I find a bold solution has been implemented, saving me the need to re-collect diffs, etc. Thank you. EdChem (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, your banning me and Hipocrite from Cold fusion was actually a solution I had suggested in several places (banning from the article, not from Talk. The article ban is not the problem. Your being the one to do it is a minor problem, because of our prior involvement, and the above exchange shows clear bias and personal involvement in a dispute (an extended, long-term dispute) with me. I posted this response to your comment at Cold fusion:

WMC, I dispute the Talk page restriction, and you are an involved administrator with respect to me, it's easily and immediately shown, and you have, ordinarily, no business imposing a non-voluntary ban on me. However, because the concern here is the article, not the Talk page, I will waive my right to contest the ban based on your involvement, and will accept it, if you limit the ban to 30 days for the article itself, for both Hipocrite and myself. Both of us, on my Talk page, already agreed to a mutual ban like this, limit unspecified, in order to expedite unprotection and allow the article to follow consensus without fuss, so your imposition of something greater than that merely means you haven't been paying attention, this was all pointed out to you. Please advise if you accept this. Until then, I will consider the full restriction to be in place, as declared by you, upon provision of notice to myself and Hipocrite on User Talk pages -- so that it is mutual and properly noticed --, and would later appeal. Until then, or, better, until you lower the ban to just the article, which is all that could be justified from the situation, I will make no further posts to this page.

Thanks. If you modify it as requested, this may have cut the Gordian knot. Otherwise, I'm afraid, it will increase disruption, not reduce it. --Abd (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted that brief comment, with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=294842682 (Decision: deleted adb comment - the terms of the ban are clear):

[Deleted. Do this again and I block you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)] --Abd (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly unnecessary wikidrama and threat.

I'd already agreed to an article topic ban and considered it in effect, under the terms of my agreement with Hipocrite on my Talk page.
I stated in my comment that you deleted that I would make no further edits to the page, pending resolution, even though I disputed your right to declare the ban without my agreement. Therefore the threat was unnecessary, and, in this case, you would not be an appropriate admin to enforce the ban in any case, you are clearly involved and biased.
There was no warning over Talk page participation.
I had just challenged your choice of version to revert to; when you made that choice, it was, on the face, based on a suggestion from GoRight, with almost no discussion but a consent from one party whose editing goals were actually furthered by it, he had edit warred to keep the material present in the May 31 version out of the article (that was the occasion for your protection of May 21); most of that material had been accepted by consensus, and we were working on more when he edit warred again, resulting in additional protection, and because he had gamed RfPP, major POV changes had been made that were worse than reverts. There were, as you know, two polls set up to consider what version to revert to. I set one up, listing some versions that I thought should be considered. Only one of these was my own preferred version of the possibilities, it was the version that existed when Hipocrite reverted himself, probably to avoid hitting 3RR (I wasn't edit warring at all in this sequence), then went to RfPP, then made a major POV edit to the lead, immediately, knowing that protection was coming down. That was the version that I thought best, it simply undid the result of gaming RfPP. Hipocrite refused to participate in that poll, instead setting up his own poll, proposing versions more to his liking. A few editors participated in that poll, since I believed that !votes for all versions should be collected in one place, I copied those !votes, in equivalent form, to my own poll, so that it would be complete. I also added the version as reverted by you. You might notice that, looking at both polls, it's the May 31 version that *everyone* supported, with, so far, low support for the May 14 version you chose. You ignored an expressed article consensus to pick a version on your own. I must conclude that it's possible you personally preferred this version, or realized that you would effectively be supporting Hipocrite's edit warring by choosing that version. GoRight had no knowledge of the history.
Your complete ban from the article and from Talk looks punitive to me.

Please reduce the ban to 30 days from the article only, and recuse yourself from further administrative involvement, and please notify Hipocrite of the ban, if you have not already done so. You hadn't last I looked. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I just declined an unblock request there. This is clearly a problem user with 10 EW blocks. How do we institute a 1R sanction? I've never done such. Does it have to go to ArbComm?Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to the admin how to go about it. One approach is simply to say "I impose a 1RR parole on you". OTOH I would suggest a simpler approach: if he returns to edit warring after the 1 month block, just indef him. I can't see this as important enough to go to arbcomm - they would reject it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin has just raised a concern about possible sock-puppetry. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold fusion bans

Greetings! I have recently been informed that you banned a number of editors from editing Cold fusion and its talk page. You may or may not be aware that I am currently attempting to mediate the Cold fusion content issues User talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion. The involved parties, namely Hipocrite and Abd seem to believe that this sort of content mediation is a step in the right direction. I would prefer that this mediation move forward, but I thought it would be a good idea to discuss it with you first. Should Abd and Hipocrite be permitted to post at the mediation page? On the one hand, the page in question is in my user talk space. Given the rules I have set forth regarding this mediation, it is unlikely that either of them will be able to continue the behavior that you have identified as being bannable. On the other hand, the discussions contained on said page will be focused on cold fusion. The end result of these conversations may lead to substantial changes to the cold fusion article, thus allowing them to indirectly edit the article. What do you think? Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]