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. If your messages are rude, wandering or repetitive I will likely edit them. If you want to leave such a message, put it on your talk page and leave me a note here. 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.

Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Current

Some assistance/advice please

Mr Connolley, I am requesting some help in editing the article on Ozone_Hole. Its kind of pertinante(sp?) since as of September 12th, 2008, the ozone hole is now larger than it has ever been. I go by the name of artoftransformation sometimes, but have not logged-in in a while, due to the whole notable/popular policy. I have a lot of information, that came from a friend of mine who did the research, and published a lot of articles, and also knew almost everyone who is doing research.

Its quite obivious that you read the FAQ, and understood it. I have a lot of perspective about what ISNT in the FAQ that still is being argued about, despite the tiny amount of counterpoint, and the vigor that goes into denial of the whole situation. Yours, user:artoftransformation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.0.29 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone depletion can be controversial; adding material with no clear source other than "from a friend" will be tricy. Best to discuss what you propose to add on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the research done by my friend is very easily found, and I would be able to get help from Forest Mims III. ( Whom, I believe contributed significantly to the FAQ. 99.185.0.29 (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)--[reply]

OK, then the thing to do is make a proposal on the talk page, including pointers to the proposed sources William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I've signed on as mediator for the MedCab case Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-09-08 State of Fear. If you are agreeable with that, would you be willing to begin with an opening statement on the case talk page? Sunray (talk) 02:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at that article. What a mess -- an article that has been around for almost four years should at least be intelligible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - what a mess. And reading the MedCab case, it looks like there's a misunderstanding of what mediation is/can do. Which makes it the same as just about ever other MedCab case I've looked in on... Guettarda (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered there. It looks to me like the whole thing may have died down anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, William. You could be right about it having died down. We shall see if there is a will to mediate. I will give it a week or two. Sunray (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Solomon conflict of interest

Hi. Given your past conflicts with Solomon, you should not be editing his article (just as he shouldn't edit yours). It's a conflict of interest. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So all Solomon has to do is mention a Wikipedia editor, and he conveniently disqualifies that editor from touching his article. Pretty clever. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This went nowhere before [19]. I refuse to get excited now William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garda Water Unit

Hi, Thanks for the tips. I will be careful about the use of the word vandal on good faith edits. In this situation however I don't believe the user Lapsed Pacifist is editing in good faith. They have already been flagged on the Conflict of Interets Noticeboard as being involved in this campaign as a member of the protest group and is currently engaging in an edit war with another user on a similiar topic Shell to Sea http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shell_to_Sea&action=history. Perhaps as an administrator you could have a look into it? Thanks Greenlightgo (talk) 08:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]