# User talk:William M. Connolley

 Fancy a scull? Bridge-to-bridge: 12:23; 12:28; headcourse 13:25. 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. Proverb: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. There's no light the foolish can see better by 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. My I'm Number 44

## ERA40 Juli 1979, omega at 500 hPa

Dear Dr. Connolley,

with interest I have studied this figure.

Omega-500-july-era40-1979.png

I wonder why there is such a strong down-draft over the eastern Mediterranean. Is it a special feature of the large Indian monsoon anticyclone and if so why is it downwelling right there? Thank you in advance for any help on this. Kind regards, Hella Riede 18:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.67.218.50 (talk)

## Thermal underwear

Idealized greenhouse model, or the section below
Thermal trousers with special emission properties

May I ask a question? I stress that I am not trying to do any original research, but only want to improve the GW article by explaining what is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the current article really explains it very well.

My question: I did some Googling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (or rather a derivative of it) seems to be fundamental. But there are two versions of it, as follows:

• S0/4*(1-alpha) = e*sigmaT^4
• S0/4*(1-alpha)+G = sigmaT^4

where alpha is albedo, S0 is a constant solar radiative flux (units W/m^2), T is temp in K, and sigma is a constant. The two sides of the equation both have units W/m^2.

In the first equation e is 'emissivity' which is unitless and is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. I think of it as an 'underpants factor'. You have a black body throbbing with radiation, which will cool unless you keep it warm. So you put some underpants on it, to keep the cold out, i.e. stop it radiating so much. Hence CO2 and water vapour are like thermal underwear to keep the earth warm (if e is 100%, the temperature is about -18 deg C, for if you solve for e with current temperature, assume 15 deg C, you find e is about 60%). I am assuming e is constant whatever the temperature for exactly the same material, is that correct? In reality e will change as the material of the atmosphere changes (more CO2, or more vapour).

In the second equation G is a number, units also W/m^2, which is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. If you solve for G for 15 deg C, you get about 150 W/m^2.

My puzzle is whether G is also constant, if for other reasons (e.g. change in solar radiation, change in albedo) the temperature changes. Intuitively it won't be constant. Why represent it this way?

Apologise if I have misunderstood, and please correct any mistakes (I am quite new to this, but it is interesting). Again, I am not trying to do any research, just finding out some facts that could be put into layman's language and hopefully into the article. I think thermal underwear is a better analogy than greenhouses, e.g. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think all this talk of underwear and throbbing bodies is appropriate. Please keep such impulses to yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You are the Walrus and you talk about throbbing bodies? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
My personal preference is for exploding underpants, but they banned them :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually it was Long Johns I was looking for but couldn't find the category until now. Anyway I prefer the leather ones. Seriously, can anyone answer my question above ? HistorianofScience (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you're looking for the one-sentence summary of the greenhouse effect, which is the earth is warmer with an atmosphere, because it receives heat from both the sun and the atmosphere. Your G, above, is the heat from the atmosphere. Put that way, it becomes obvious that G is not contstant, in time (long or short term) or space William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation but I'm still not sure I understand. Suppose we turned off the sun like an electric light. Then the earth no longer receives heat from the sun. Does it still receive heat from the atmosphere?
Until the atmosphere cools down, yes. Then no William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Surely not. Isn't the correct explanation that the atmosphere is acting like a blanket around the earth, preventing it from cooling as fast as a black body would?
No. You need to read what I wrote and understand it. Until you do, you will get nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
So it's not heating the earth, it's preventing it from cooling as fast as it would in the black body case.
No William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
And the heat energy it is losing should be identical, at the instant the sun turns off, to what it was receiving from the sun. If that is correct, G is the difference between the W/m^2 that the black body would emit, and the W/m^2 actually emitted. No? HistorianofScience (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As a very very broad-brush approximation, the atmosphere receives no heat directly from the sun, since it is transparent to SW. The atmosphere is heated by LW from the earth (which itself, of course, is ultimately sourced from SW from the sun absorbed at the earth's sfc. Can you cope with maths? If you can, this is easily written down - indeed it is somewhere, I only need to point you at it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I can cope with maths. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Would it be more like those rude transparent underpants then? [1] HistorianofScience (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Writing it all out is quicker than finding it, so... simplifying, the sun shines 4S units on the uniform earth (and since the area of a circle is 1/4 the area of a corresponding sphere the 4 drops out), which is a black body (forget albedo for the moment, it makes no real difference). The atmosphere is transparent to SW, and can be considered as a single layer not in conductive contact with the surface. There is no diurnal cycle, all is averaged out, all is in equilibrium.

So at the sfc (with atmosphere) we have the following equation:

S + G = rT^4

(the surface is black, captures all solar SW and transforms it into LW which it re-radiates) and G is the radiation from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, in the atmosphere,

2G = rT^4

(the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). As it happens G = r(T_a)^4 but we don't care about that for tihs analysis.

Hence, S + G = 2G, hence S = G, hence T_1 = (2S/r)^0.25. Meanwhile, in the absence of the atmosphere, we clearly would have T_2 = (S/r)^0.25. T_1 > T_2 (by a factor of 2^0.25) and (T_1 - T_2) is the greenhouse effect.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, this [2] and the linked [3] also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (appreciated).
How do you get from S + G = rT^4 to 2G = rT^4 without the assumption that S=G (which you later derive). The intervening bracketed "the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). " seems like an explanation, but I didn't understand it.
The atmospheric layer absorbs all the surface LW, which is the rT^4. It is in equilibrium. It radiates , equally, upwards and downwards, G. So it gains rT^4 and loses 2G, so those two are equal William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
If the earth receives all the SW, then reflects it back to the layer, why do you say earlier that the layer heats the earth? Why isn't it the other way round.
No, it doesn't reflect the SW - it is assumed black. It absorbs all the SW and re-radiates it as LW. Yes, "the earth heats the atmosphere" can also be regarded as true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. HistorianofScience (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

## Blast from the past

Not to creep you out, but I was looking through old RfAs and I found this, from your second, and succesful, RfA. To the question of: How do you see Wikipedia in 2010 ?

OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see wikipedia continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user sovereignty are not worth solving at this stage. William M. Connolley 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Thought you'd be amused. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes. "Prediction is hard, especially of the future" as they say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Ha. So they say. I'm really good at the past prediction part though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

## More thermals

Thanks for your explanation which I am afraid I still don't really follow. I don't see how 'the earth heats the atmosphere' and 'the atmosphere heats the earth' can both be true.

• If it is true that none of the SW affects the atmosphere and that the earth reflects LW as a result, then the earth is the cause of the warming. Indeed couldn't we ignore the sun entirely, turn it off and install a large amount of patio heaters all round the earth pointing upwards at the sky: this would have the same effect.
• I didn't understand the both directions stuff "It [the atmosphere] radiates , equally, upwards and downwards". Maybe it does, but, unless there is a net outflow of LW heat energy from the earth to balance the SW coming in, the temperature of the earth will not be at equilibrium. A net flow can only be in one direction, by definition.
• The net outflow from the earth must be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere, otherwise the atmosphere would continue heat up. The atmosphere is hotter than the earth's surface because the outflow from the atmosphere has to occur at a higher temperature than the same outflow from the earth. So, the earth is the 'efficient cause' of the heating of the atmosphere, surely. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You've dropped down into words (some of which are wrong: as I've said before, Earth doesn't reflect LW. It is black in LW). It is clearer if you use maths. Or pix, perhaps. Lets try:
```                          |
G ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
|
----------------------------
Atmosphere. Emits G, up and down, thermal radiation. Absorbs S+G.
----------------------------

|    |
|    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
G V

^ S+G
|
-----------------------------
Sfc. Abs S(SW)+G(LW). Thus emits (S+G)(LW). Thus S+G = rT^4
```

Clear now? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, apart from the bit about not reflecting LW (that seemed picky, unless I misunderstood it), which of my claims was wrong? I said that the net outflow from earth to atmosphere has to be upwards. And that this outflow has to be exactly equal to the outflow from the atmosphere into space. Your diagram is incomprehensible. And what about Greenhouse effect where it says "Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface, making our life on earth possible." This is entirely wrong isn't it? It gives the impression that we are safe because only part of the radiation escapes to space, but the rest is trapped behind & keeps us snug and warm. The reality is that the net outflow from the earth has to be exactly balanced by the outflow at the edge of the atmosphere into space. Otherwise the atmosphere would keep on heating up until equilibrium was restored. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 The unclearness of the diagram is the omission of the causality. You have the atmosphere radiating G downwards, e.g. Yes but where does the G come from? If we were to start with turning on the sun like a switch, at that instant there would be no G from the atmosphere. In which case the first thing to hit the earth would be S. Then earth would emit (not reflect) S. With no G. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, you need the maths and the pix, not the words. The diagram is a steady state. We can re-draw it, if you like, for an Earth at 0K above which the sun has just been turned on:
```                          |
0 ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
|
----------------------------
----------------------------

|    |
|    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
0 V

^ 0
|
-----------------------------
Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
```
So now in this pix you see that the atmos is still in equilibrium, at 0K, but the Earth isn't: It is absorbing S but radiating nothing. So it will warm up, yes? So after a bit we get something like this:
```                          |
0 ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
|
----------------------------
----------------------------

|    |
|    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
0 V

^ G_T
|
-----------------------------
Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). Has warmed up somewhat, to T. Emits rT^4, call this G_T.
```

So now the sfc has warmed up somewhat, so it is emitting G_T in the LW. Now the atmosphere isn't in balance: it is absorbing G_T but emitting nothing, since it is at 0K. So it will warm up. So it will start emitting downwards an warm further. And eventually we end up with the equilibrium solution William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

## Service award update

 Hello, William M. Connolley! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I hate it when these things change :-( Oh well, I'll see if the new one looks any prettier than the old :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

## Dynamic topography

To William and his talk page stalkers:

Would you (ambiguously singular or plural) like to expand the portion of "Dynamic topography" that is about the oceans?

I am planning on doing some expansion of the solid-Earth-geophysics portion of that article (which currently covers both the dynamically-supported ocean elevations and topography due to motion of material in the mantle), but I think it would be a disservice to continue to ignore the ocean part. Ideally, we would have two separate standalone articles.

Awickert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How analogous are they? I never got through reading Gill, so maybe now is my chance :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't know anything about it in the oceans; in the Earth it is due to motion in the mantle that creates normal tractions on interfaces such as the surface, the upper/lower mantle discontinuity, the core-mantle boundary, etc. Since it is supposed to be about the motion of seawater, I can imagine how the physics could be identical, but I can't say for sure and about to head out the door: off to see a friend perform in Guettarda's favorite musical, Awickert (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Careful. That is pretty clear evidence of a Cabal, or possibly a Cadre William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Cadre, I think. In our obligatory red shirts. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking about "Gang of N." It has a nice math/science ring to it, and evokes the Gang of Four. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
While "Gang of N" has a certain ring to it (the definitions are so amorphous, no one can agree how many there are), I think "Gang of i" might be more appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I was totally baffled by "Guettarda's favourite musical"...until I remembered that conversation. It was especially puzzling since I've never seen it, have no idea what it's actually about, and don't even know what comes after the second "Oklahoma!" Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a good one - you should see it. Back to the topic: if it turns out that the underlying physics are the same, but just expressed in different media, I bet we could leave it at one article. If they are fundamentally different, then let's split. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

## WP:ARBCC

All the stupidity in one convenient place

## PD initial thoughts

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision looks about as stupid as I'd expected, though not as stupid as some others expected. The failure of any meaningful remedies for admin involvement, which wrecked the CC probation, is a flaw. But to be fair, the PD is capable of becoming moderately sensible with the correct votes. The real test is who votes for that William M. Connolley (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thunks
I think it's utterly useless, actually. It's a standard 'ban one from each side' decision. While the proposed principles do identify some of the problems (sourcing, due & undue weight), it's like they forgot about them beyond that point. There's nothing in that decision which actually suggests that they read any of the evidence or workshop, or did anything to actually educate themselves about what's going on. And there's absolutely nothing in that decision that will do anything to defuse the situation. Guettarda (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
You are likely right, though it will depend on the voting. What puzzles me is how they took so long over this - any fool could have scrawled that on the back of a fag packet in 5 mins from the opening of the case William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
They have not gotten hold of the situation by the scruff of the neck and it appears that Lar agrees on this. This has not really solved anything. WEAK WEAK WEAK Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps intentionally so. There seemed to be an intent to lower the volume of the controversy by doing the bare minimum. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
An acceptable strategy if CC enforcement was not in place already but not acceptable if there is a failled system overseeing CC enforcement. Arbcom has effectively endorsed a failled system. Polargeo (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I doubt it. If you haven't already, read Boris' Pocket Guide to Arbitration. That pretty much sums it up. I have seen dozens of cases that simply default to something like this - ignore the underlying issues, and hand out a few bans. Arbitration enforcement (AE) was an innovation a couple years back, which helped a little. So it's now thrown at every case as well. This result could have been written without looking at the case. In fact, it was, if you look at what the vandal was posting on the PD page yesterday. They captured the essence of the decision. Guettarda (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
So a cry going out to all editors. Lets get rid of enforcement as a community and replace it with somthing better, agreed by all and not depending on arbcom. Polargeo (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I would want to see all editors involved in this. Polargeo (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The CC enforcement failed, because it was hijacked by involved admins pretending to be uninvolved. There is no sign of arbcomm dealing with this, nor any sign of the community being able to William M. Connolley (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. I often feel that it was my lone voice when I discovered CC probation and realised that it was not fully community approved but being strongly pushed by a couple of editors that things were going badly wrong. Polargeo (talk) 12:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Replacement of the CC enforcement page with Arbitration Enforcement, which presumably gets a wider readership, was a good idea. One general comment: in retrospect, the process is amazingly opaque. This may seem like a newbie sentiment and it is, but to somebody looking at this process fresh it is amazingly contrary to Wikipedia practices, almost like a star chamber. First people have to make proposals, not having any idea if they'll be entertained by the committee. Then the committee deliberates like a jury for weeks or months. The process needs to be opened up. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
@PG: I think we're actually in disagreement, at least in part. I think you view the entirety of the CC probation as bad. I think it could have been helpful, after being setup, had it not been subsequently hijacked by Lar and LHVU William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes but what you don't appreciate is that I had been dealing with enforcement on balkans articles and only saw CC probation as bad and a poor solution based on experience, I found no agreement at the time unfortunately. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The PD is exactly as many of the Cabal members expected -- it's well known that Risker and Rlevse despise you, and the long delay was because they had to win over Brad to get sufficiently humiliating sanctions. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the arbs pay little or no attention to the Evidence/Workshop pages and base their decisions on broad impressions of who the good guys and bad guys are. (It has to be said that your recent actions gave R/R ammunition.) I think Risker's tactic here has been to set the Overton window at her desired boundary; the final decision may not be as extreme. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you mean initially propose something totally absurd, and hope the rest are too dumb to notice that the final result is still absurd? Anyway, NYB gets his first two tests here [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I've tended to bend over backwards and to say that arbcom needs time to do this, that they need to read the evidence to make a thoughtful decision. Now I see how wrong I was. This wasn't a thoughtful decision. It doesn't even pretend to be a thoughtful decision. It certainly doesn't read as if it had been carefully hammered out. I was definitely naive in my expectations.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, glasshopper, you have much to learn. Meanwhile NYB wimped out of his test so now everyone gets their chance William M. Connolley (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
It was a reasonable position to take. You're just not an old cynic like some of us. In general terms, the decision is entirely in keeping with Boris' Guide to Arbitration. In specific terms, the vandal got it pretty much right (taking into account the fact that the vandal's version was parody). Guettarda (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
There was a lot of truth to that parody, apart from it being very funny. With some modifications it might be usable as a comedy essay. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision&oldid=380300292 if anyone is wondering William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The only thing I don't like about it is the snide reference to articles on the NY Subway system. Some of us are into that. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
If it doesn't offend you in some way, then it's not good satire. Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_WMC, in case you missed it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision/Statements#Statement_by_WMC I think William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

## PD continuing thoughts

More thunks

Rlevse has gorn [6]. That's interesting. There is no hint of why, though. Can't say I'm sorry but it would be interesting to know why. R has done some really wacky things with the PD William M. Connolley (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Naughty boy, you ignored Boris' warning to keep a low profile and not to challenge the faulty system too much, yet again. But like last time, your opponents exploited your actions a bit too vigorously, causing their efforts to backfire on them. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Arbcom is coming down heavily in favor of Lar and his faction, going so far as to rewrite the definition of "uninvolved" so as to specifically exclude Lar. WP:ADMIN sez "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors) and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Notice how Arbcom has refudiated the "current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)" bit and focused solely on content? It's hard to escape the conclusion that Arbcom knew what they wanted to decide long ago, and are assembling the evidence and rewriting policy to fit their preferred outcome. So at the end of the day it wouldn't have mattered if WMC had behaved himself. They were going to nail him no matter what. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised to hear you say that. I don't see that supported by the current round of votes, though who knows what the future will bring William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

### FoF thoughts

It all came true for GJP, M4th, ZP5, JWB. But still arbcomm fail to see the obvious

I'm minded to put forward a couple of extra FoF's:

• GJP has been disruptive (I think the totally inapproriate GA review at a time when people were trying to step back was the most obvious; now reversed, happily [7])
• Minor4th has been disruptive
• ZP5 has been disruptive (in the sense that his disruption to valuable content ratio is infinite)
• JohnWBarber has been disruptive

Other obvious ones are ATren and Cla. [Oops - forgot JWB, the other obvious one. Added belatedly William M. Connolley (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)]

Thoughts? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm chatting with ATren at the moment, who seems (in spite of our disagreements) to be a decent well-meaning fellow.
I would be opposed to any sort of trouble for Cla68; he is a good content contributor and plays by the rules, and I find his behavior to be generally very respectable. Awickert (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Mixed feelings. Cla68 is good at following the letter of the law but disregards its spirit when it suits him. I find his view that we should prefer newspapers above the peer-reviewed literature to be deeply disturbing, but he may come by it honestly given that he appears to have no understanding at all of the scientific aspects of the articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I think that this is Cla68's background: he does a very good job of writing various history articles. In all of my interactions with him, he has been very reasonable, so I am sure that we will be able to work out the sourcing issue with him. I feel that, of all of the above, he is by far the most likely to do a substantial amount of useful writing. Awickert (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Cla is fine on milhist, I presume; and if he stayed there, all would be well. If you want to see bad faith from him, then Talk:Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change#InterAcademy_Council_report will do. Or his repeated attempts to insert HSI as a reference William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Anybody remember his antics on the Warm period article? That was strange. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Who could forget As far back as geological proxy measurements go, each warm period has been followed by a cool period. Ed Poor loved it. Though admittedly, I had forgotten. Mind you, Don't you think it would be more helpful to then change the article text to fit what the ref's say? was quite a classic too William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Might also be worth noting the addition of blog-sourced content to a BLP by Minor4th, which failed to evince the usual moral panic by subsequent editors. Granted, it's a step up from Cla68 and Tillman trying to source content from blog comments, but it's still (a) a BLP, and (b) potentially embarrassing. Guettarda (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Cla68 insight? Actually, the whole WR thread is interesting and indicative that there is some synergistic sharing between Lar, Cla68, and Moulton. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

Stupidity collapsed, though it is still there, alas
• The following users have accepted binding voluntary topic bans;
• The following administrators are explicitly restricted from applying discretionary sanctions as authorized in this case, as is any other administrator fitting the description of an involved administrator;

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is regrettable that you have to work for such poor masters William M. Connolley (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

### Final decision: thoughts

Yet more thunks

Of the decision:

• the "scorched earth" idea is unthinking and stupid.
• arbcomm demonstrate again an inability to distinguish the valuable from the valueless; indeed, they appear to be too lazy to even try.
• in pursuit of their atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant they have failed to notice that peace has already broken out. For two reasons: the worst of the "skeptics" (MN, M4th, Cla, ATren, TGL) are all gone; and the external forcing (Climatic Research Unit email controversy‎) has been resolved in favour of Climate Science. So all the disruption was for nothing.

About the only good thing about the PD is that it is so obviously bad, it is likely to rebound more to the discredit of arbcomm than anyone else.

Of the process:

• more of it should be open. There were very clearly extensive periods when off-wiki emails between the arbs were the main means of discussion. Some of that must be tolerable, but not to the extent that it is done. The arbs have become as addicted to secrecy as the Civil Service, and it is not good: both because of the dark deeds done in darkness (one example: the unexplained but welcome booting out of Rlevse) and because lack of on-wiki information fostered unease amongst the participants.
• the arbs need to be more involved, and to manage the process. Some are lazy, but none are good. This isn't acceptable. It has become near-expected practice in arbcomm cases for nothing but a few gnomic utterances from arbs during the case. The sheer volume of evidence and discussion produced by petty back-and-forth needs to be rigourously policed. Arbcomm as a whole is fairly lazy, in that they don't really evaluate the actual abckground to a case - that would be too much trouble, and they never bother. Instead, they rely on behaviour *during* a case, and part of their technique is a deliberate fostering of the possibility for disorder, in order to give them a lazy way of deciding. In this case, arbcomm gave a clear signal right at the start that evidence limits could be ignored. It was downhill from there.

Of the arbs:

• none of them emerge with any credit.

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice the Hipocrite slapped a retired template up? Even though he said it wasn't due to the case, I think it was for the most part. I find it sad that a lot of long term editors just gave up after this case. Do you think Verbal will be back? I didn't think we lose so many long term editors like this. I am actually surprised in one way but in the other way I guess it's to be expected. :( --CrohnieGalTalk 18:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is now underway somewhere as to whether it's kosher to have a section such as the one below, discussing scholarly articles proposed by the Banned. It's so utterly bizarre, but to someone familiar with Wikipedia it would seem routine. Of course, to one of the most active (and unsanctioned) CC editors, my very act of posting on this page would be considered... I forget the words he used. Fraternizing with the unclean? ScottyBerg (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Could not see the discussion anywhere. FWIW I think any conversation which people bring here ought to be ok, as long as it stays here and does not get directly cited as part of an argument anywhere else. Ought, because I haven't got time to read the exact ruling but practically speaking it is much better for everyone if any such conversations stay here and visible rather than disappear on to email. Isn't there something about a prophet living in a tree whom people travelled to consult which even fits with one of the pictures....--BozMo talk 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#What_does_topic_banned_mean.3F ScottyBerg (talk) 20:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Some valid concerns are being raised in that discussion, but valid only in the Wikipedia sense. Outside of Wikipedia, I'd think that trying to prevent scientists from listing sources would be viewed with amazement. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with most everything you said in your analysis apart from the juicy gossip that I cannot directly verify. One comment, though: it's been perennially easy to be hard on arbcom; in fact, it won't take too much digging in my history to see my take on them. It seems to me now that they're basically doing exactly what the committee was designed to do when it was first set-up. Wikipedia and arbcom are both intentionally dysfunctional because the only way the content could have been created and given its high Google-ranks in the first place was to open it to the peanut-gallery that is the internet. What we have entrenched now is a culture that values inane process over efficiency, brute force over nuance, and immature niceties over intellectual heft. Sounds like any other internet microcosm to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It's unquestionable that the process was far more opaque than it should have been, and took too long. I think that everyone involved except the arbs would agree with that. Email deliberations have their place, but there was far too little communication with the parties. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It's been that way in every arbitration case since 2005 as far as I can tell. Additionally, with every arbcom election, there are candidates who get elected who promise to change the system, and they all end up either resigning or changing their minds. The opacity was intentional and has always been a part of Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Obviously, there are scenarios where private communications are needed, but for whatever reason arbcom tends to function primarily on this level to their own detriment.
I think the model of the US Supreme Court is much better. Let disputants make statements and enter evidence. Then let arbcom ask questions. Then shut everything down. Arbcom comes back with a singular ruling and opposing minority opinions with signatures.
ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
That, actually, would be my favored model because it would tend to promote coherent decisions and better expressed dissent. Odds of being able to reform ArbCom to work this way: internal (ArbCom) support: 25%, external (community) support: 0.01%. If lucky. — Coren (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
That seems like it might work, actually. Anybody know what the procedure is to have it implemented? Maybe an RFC to gauge support,. and the closing consensus is the community's recommendation to the Committee? The WordsmithCommunicate 03:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom does not answer to the community, only to Jimbo. So, one has to ask Jimbo if he would be willing to consider community proposals to reform the ArbCom system. Count Iblis (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that having arbcomm ask questions would be the correct way to work. I disagree that people would disagree. Furthermore, I don't think arbcomm's way of working is anywhere set in stone - it is just How They Do Stuff. The could do it differently for the next case, if they chose to. Coren blaming-the-community-in-advance for arbcomm's failure to reform itself is a Poor Show William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This [10] edit by H is good: both for the identification of the same flaw in the system as discussed above; and for the note about dirty backroom dealing William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Late thought: arbcomm cases, when raised, should be complete. So no evidence should be considered that concerns behaviour after the case is accepted William M. Connolley (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

## Issues...few seem to understand

Insert appropraite comment here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

WMC...well, what can I say...if the evidence is cherry picked, then there is plenty out there to show our intolerance of non-science. Like you, I have a history of being less than cordial to those here to promote unscientific information...however, I do not believe I have ever, nor have you ever, done this because we see Wikipedia as a place to promote a POV, but rather as a place to try and build a reliable fact based source for information. I'm not an expert on CC, but am very well read on it and am active in keeping myself up to date on the latest....like this. I strongly disagree with the comment that LessHeard vanU made here but primarily his comment that..." disregarding the evidence compiled that this is your preferred modus operandi in trying to promote your vision of what is appropriate (and what is not) to be included in the subject area - is the reason why I believe this case to be inadequate in dealing with a concerted campaign to deny a wide ranging examination of the subject of Climate Change, including and especially the skeptic or denialist viewpoint." I see little room that should be made regarding the skeptical viewpoint...it isn't backed up by the preponderance of evidence, nor is it anything more than cherry picking the inconsistancies that can be found in dealing with a complex variable science such as climate change...there is one absolute truth in AGW and that is that it is happening...the path it is taking as it gets worse is naturally going to have some inconsistancies. You know this and so do I, but those that want to convince others that AGW is being oversold, is inaccurate or is a "lie" are using these inconsistancies to undermine the underlying truth. I see no reason to allow article space to be an "experiment" in examining the skeptical viewpoint except in articles devoted to that purpose. I don't know if I can offer a road back for you at this point...if others truly feel that the skeptical viewpoint should get better examination within the article space, then it would seem that CC subject matter on this website is doomed to becoming infested with this unreasonable doubt. No amount of civility or efforts to show assume good faith "improvements" (laughable for me to assume good faith of those trying to undermine the known evidence) on your part will override a desire by others to see more of the skeptical examination, and their failure to understand your ridigity in trying to keep these nonscientific viewpoints minimized is exasperating to me.--MONGO 20:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Know what you mean guv. But to be fair, other than generally contributing to poisoning the case I don't think LHVU's nonsense afflicted the arbs much. Certainly it didn't make it into the FoF or remedies (did it?) and I don't see any implication at all in the decision that any of the content was slanted (perhaps the BLP bit?) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I simply disagree with LHVU's take on the matter, and wondered if aside from the general sanctions, if many feel that the skeptical view isn't getting enough "weight" in article space...that was my take on his position, though like you said, this doesn't seem to be part of the findings or visible basis for the sanctions but that could possibly be because arbcom doesn't (openly) settle content disputes.--MONGO 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Based on the discussion that has arisen subsequent to the decision, concerning whether the topic ban covers user page posts, I sense a kind of huffy attitude and desire to separate WMC from these articles, even in areas not explicitly covered by the decision or even discussed during the case. There seems to be a desire to restore a semblance of harmony whatever the cost. Somebody said on this page a day or so ago that this is consistent with a website that is based on broad Internet participation. I'm not precisely quoting but that's the gist. The Internet does have a larger than normal proportion of people who advocate nontraditional POVs, and their needs must be served. That's the message I hear in this decision. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I sense a certain degree of fear. Some people have so little confidence in wikipedia that even distant comment by me makes them tremble (Fred Bauder springs to mind). If they are too scared of seeing what is on this page, they can unwatch William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The user page comment thread was pretty unanimous that such posts are definitely not kosher, so I suspect that if they don't like what they see on this page they'll do more than unwatch. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
You clearly have a differenet definition on unanimous to me. In particular, SA provided evidence to the contrary. Like I say, anyone who doesn't want to read what is written here can unwatch William M. Connolley (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
My impression is that the people who are known for supporting a hard line attitude to these sorts of issues, have been the most vocal in that discussion there. They overplayed their hand last time (when the issue was inserting comments in postings made here), so I don't think they would want to start another conflict on a non-issue, leading to a big brawl at AE, weakening the whole enforcement regime. Count Iblis (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it appeared to me that the sentiment was against using the talk pages. Not unanimous, certainly. I was against it, for instance, for what it was worth, which wasn't much. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll give another comment on that thread. I think they are missing something when they look at the issue raised by Lar in a very narrow way. In the way they are framing it, their point makes sense. In general, you don't want talk pages to be used by topic banned editors to continue being engaged in the topic they were topic banned from. And this issue has been a problem in other ArbCom cases. But then, this particular case is different for a few reasons, which have nothing to do with William trying to get around the topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

## More obsessive secrecy from arbcomm

[11] William M. Connolley (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the limited amount of checkusers, it's fairly easy to check their block logs. No other checkuser has blocked any accounts as PG socks. (Unless they suppressed the block...) There was 1 rangeblock Special:Contributions/194.66.0.0/24. -Atmoz (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Err, maybe, but that wasn't the question, was it? I'm a bit baffled - what did I say that you interpreted as that being the answer to?
Also, that range is BAS. Possibly all of it. This stinks of paranoia William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Um... something, somewhere, I think? I guess it wasn't you. Oh well, my mistake. But if anyone does/did ask, there's the answer. Happy another orange bar. (Yes, blocking all of BAS was probably overkill. Most of the edits on that range were either a long time ago, or unrelated.) -Atmoz (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thats all right then. At least I know about the range block. It probably has edits by me in it - I guess I must be a PG sock too William M. Connolley (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this is only the logical continuation of a failed policy - why waste time driving off expert editors one by one if you can block them wholesale? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Careful, you're a good boy, remember? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Didn't anybody get the bulletin? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Missed it. Oops, looks like you were a bit too Sekret. Scarlet letter stuff I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That is I suppose the kind of editors them want here. 80.186.105.107 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC) formerly known as Dreg743

## Discussion thereof

Seems to have died down. Unhat if you have anything new to say
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sigh. For info only, out of politeness as is normal when editors are discussed on noticeboards. In my own view, you'd be best advised to ignore it and not join in the discussion. At least until there are significant further developments, but then what do I know. . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
WMC, please don't play this game. It will not lead to a result you could qualify as positive, for anyone involved. You disagree with the ruling; that has been made abundantly clear here and everywhere else you have chosen to expound on your disapproval. Nevertheless, you need to abide by it, and such literal toeing of the line reflects poorly on yourself and will lead to escalation. — Coren (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you're paying any attention to JAJ. If people don't want to read this page, they don't have to. And, as SA points out, the precedent is in the other direction: this is entirely permissible. Are you really so frightened? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Because you are a valuable contributor, even if you did get too personally involved in a conflict. Right now, you're doing you damned best to burn bridges and that is something you are most likely to regret in the end. — Coren (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It is nice to see that acknowledged, even if far too late.
As for the bridges, I disagree. In fact I don't even know what you mean by it William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
More constructively, why not give a hand in and around ZFC? The whole mess of set theory articles on Wikipedia is poorly sourced and opaque to all but someone with a strong maths background. You certainly have both experience and talent at writing that would be put to good use over there — and allow you to disengage from the climate mess. — Coren (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. But if you want that as a favour, you need to be rather less heavy about other matters William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I wish you could take a step back and realize that if favor this is, it would be entirely to your benefit. You're no longer a scientist when you write about CC on Wikipedia, Dr. Connolley, you are a participant. That's as unhealthy for you as it is disruptive to Wikipedia; and we are hoping a brief vacation entirely away from the topic will allow you to disengage enough to help return with objectivity. Your idea of User:WMC that does not share your watchlist was excellent — avail yourself of it. — Coren (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
You're no longer a scientist when you write about CC on Wikipedia, Dr. Connolley, you are a participant - you're wrong. Firstly, I'm no longer a scientist at all - I'm a software engineer. But no, I'm not a "participant" now any more than I was 2, 3 or 7 years ago. Unless you have some novel definition I don't know about William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Taking a purely pragmatic point of view, one has to consider maintaining CC articles on a daily basis that are not watched by many people. The main global warming page is watched by 1500 people, but there are a lot of other pages that have a handful of watchers, many of whom don't edit Wikipedia frequently. Mostly, these are pages on technical aspects of climate science. In contrast, the polemic pages tend to have a large number of watchers.

William seems to have all these CC pages on his watchlist and if we don't want him to communicate obvious problems (like subtle POV pushing in the two cases reported by William above), then other editors have to watchlist these pages and check out every edit on a daily basis. This would require all these pages to be listed somewhere so that people like me can monitor them.

Now, when I just checked out the latest problem reported by William, I also tried to find if there already is some coordinated effort to maintain the articles. What I found was that Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force exists for this purpose, but that this is inactive (also quite a few of the listed members seem to have a problematic background, it seems). The lists of articles that I saw there are not up to date, e.g. I didn't find the article William pointed to listed there. Count Iblis (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Cl Ch task force never had any credibility, for any number of reasons, some of which you allude to. To revive it you'd need a purpose for it. For quite a long time t:GW was the informal Cl Ch noticeboard William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

## Blocked for two weeks

Twattery

After all the discussion, which you are well aware of, you continue to try and find ways to sneak around the edges of your topic ban. This will not be tolerated from you or any of the other banned editors. Banned means leave it alone, entirely. No exceptions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I see the result for User:Cla68 was to turn a blind eye. Interesting. By the way, whose sockpuppet is User:EngineerFromVega? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Why now and not say 10 days ago for this? That's when the first comment was made in the section so again, why now? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Not the admin, but the block came 15 minutes after the complaint at WP:AE. Right or wrong, the timeline is fairly clear.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• You're telling me that this block came 15 min. after the complaint? Since when is 15 minutes enough time to discuss whether an editor should be blocked, never mind just blocking said editor? Editors are located around the world in different time zones as you know so I don't understand the rush here. Was this considered an emergency to protect the project? I sure hope not. I was too late to make a comment at AE. The decision was already made to block, this is wrong. Maybe WMC deservers a block, that's not what I'm complaining about. What my problems is, is 15 minutes with a complaint then boom a 2 week block. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with this? --CrohnieGalTalk 17:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
• Actually the arbcomm case encouraged decisiveness, and one of the arbs said something to that effect in response to Tony's recent request. The alternative - agonise over it for two weeks and then still block - is probably not an improvement. Guettarda (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason:

No indication of what I have been blocked for. Nor indeed is "Banned means leave it alone, entirely. No exceptions" justified by the arbcomm result or policy William M. Connolley (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is an arbitration enforcement block. It can only be appealed as described at WP:AEBLOCK.  Sandstein  20:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and can someone please point Beeblebrox at User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats William M. Connolley (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason:

You miss the point. This block was not imposed pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy. The arbcomm remedy does not include edits to my user talk page. Also, following recent intereactions with you, you cannot possibly be regarded as an impartial admin

Decline reason:

While I understand that's your opinion, this block should be reviewed using the AE process, so don't use {{unblock}}, but instead use {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, thanks for the info. Wiki seems to have gone mad, or at least a portion of it has. At least a few remain sane William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
If you are finished writing out your appeal, I can move it to the AE page for you. However, I would suggest writing something a bit more substantive, perhaps a paragraph stating that you don't think it was violation of the ban, and that if the Request for Clarification rules that that sort of thing is not allowed, you will abide by it? I think that would give you a greater chance of a successful appeal. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I believe I've covered the sustance. Could you also get Beeblebrox to strike the "Mr" insult, unless he was doing it deliberately? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I will move it over now. As far as Beeblebrox, I doubt he intended it as an insult. Modern conventions indicate that males should generally be called Mr, and so I doubt he even considered it. I will ask him, though, if he will change it. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks (it shouldn't be necessary for you to do so. B ought to have read what I've written above). Also, there is a typo in my appeal: is the onehat -> 'is the one that. Could you correct that? Also, the template (presumably in an effort to rub salt into wounds) says that the appeal will be dismissed unless I notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then jump through some more hoops. Could you possibly jump throuygh the hoops for me? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I have jumped through the appropriate hoops on your behalf, and I made a request on Beeblebrox's talkpage that he address you in your preferred manner. I'm going to review the evidence presented again, and then I will form an opinion regarding the appeal. At this point, i'm not sure what course of action I will suggest. If you wish to make any further statements for your appeals, make them here and I will transfer them over. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks William M. Connolley (talk)

## Off-wiki meatpuppetry encouraged by arbcom! Transparency decried as disruptive!

Bizarre. I guess the appropriate thing to do now is to keep all conversations about climate change off wiki. Plausible deniability seems to be the arbitration committee's preferred mode of operation. Transparency is to be eschewed. This is oddly in-keeping with their primary mode of deliberation. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre indeed
Agreed, arbcom do everything they can get away with away from scrutiny. It is very difficult to challenge arbcom on this because complete cooperation of all involved editors in any particular case is needed to force this to change. They tried to keep my case away from public eyes and wrapped it up with all arbs voting under some checkuser cloud even though I never requested or needed any secrecy. In fact secrecy worked against me as certain members of arbcom almost certainly realised when pushing their hasty agenda driven solutions. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Accepted practice is to discuss the topic on WR, then make the edits here. :-P Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I cannot comment about that on-wiki because that would involve me discussing the conduct of administrators in CC probation. Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You mentioned "the CC probation"! That's an obvious attempt to prolong the dispute and deserves a lengthy block. We have to make you scum understand that business means business. (Sadly, I'm not sure whether I'm joking or not...) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Your joking Boris, don't know about the rest of them though. 2 weeks? I don't understand why looking at this talk page I don't see it. Did WMC, sorry WMC, did you talk about CC some place else? I'm confused because I don't see anything here recent to cause the block. Can someone clarify for me please? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGalTalk 13:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, see #Misc breakage, above. It struck me as a sensible solution, but people found it problematic and told him to stop. He posted a third one, which led to AE, which led to a block. Unreasonable? Sure. Putting process above improving the encyclopaedia? Sure. But given that he was told to stop, from a purely process perspective, it's it difficult point to argue. But honestly, I'm more inclined to see this as bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, rather than stupidity or maliciousness.
At the heart of this is a desire to "do something". It's what we say to politicians all the time. "Do something". Got a crime problem? Enforce tougher sentences! It doesn't matter if the solutions (a) fail to address the actual problem, and (b) result in draconian punishments for people guilty of relatively minor infractions (cf. war on drugs) - people want action, they want to see something being done. In Wikipedia, the people wanting action and the people capable of acting happen to overlap significantly. So it all gets more complicated.
Tougher laws don't actually solve crime problems, especially when they don't actually do anything to deal with the underlying problems. A tougher sanctions regime isn't going to solve the problem here - they're driven by a combination of real-world politics and bloggers taking specific aim at articles and editors here. People still seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that this is about personalities, that you can solve the problem by clamping down on the 'problem children'. That's not to say that there aren't problems between editors, conflicts that have made matters worse. But they're minor. Without the "external forcings", we wouldn't have a big problem here.
In one sense the problem is the solution. The arbcomm case created a flawed framework. But the arbcomm actually has no power of its own. The power actually lies with the community. A constant stream of 'test cases' makes matters worse. What has happened since the case closed is very unfortunate. Guettarda (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that in this case, the block doesn't prevent William from posting another CC article link, it only prevents William from editing other non CC articles. :) . Count Iblis (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
True, but the next block could keep him from editing his talk page as well. I agree that what's happening is going to shift a lot of activity off-wiki, and things can get hairy. I tried to raise that issue in one of the discussions a few days ago, but without success. I think that we're definitely seeing process triumphing over content here. The choice was made, and content is going to suffer. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Yep, it will force things off-wiki. May as well start now:
Sign here to join the secret mailing list.
1. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
2. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
3. --17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
4. William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
5. Count Iblis (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
6. --~~
7. Jimbo Wales (talk) Imaginary time, Modified Julian Date (UTC)
This is not a good idea. Remember the Eastern European Mailing List case, in which multiple people were banned because it was discovered they were using a mailing list. Cardamon (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, but this is a secret mailing list. So no one knows it exists. It's safe to assume that these people are not part of that list. The fact that one does not receive messages from the list is proof that the list exists is the fact that you are not receiving messages from it. And every time you see vandalism reverted, you will have to ask yourself whether it was produced by some sort of a secret list. And, BTW, the issue with the EEML was not the existence of the list, but rather, the way it was used. Guettarda (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume that this is being done in jest (it is, isn't it?), but it definitely can be misconstrued. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but information on the list is only available via the list. As soon as you subscribe, you will get an email with full instructions. Please disable your spam filter, as we use steganography to make the more important announcements look like penis enlargement ads. In fact, you may already be subscribed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I like your thinking. In fact I like it so much I stole it :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Only reasonable solution I see here is to elect Boris to the arbcomm. Guettarda (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
He's got my vote! --CrohnieGalTalk 13:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
A run for arbcom certainly is an intriguing proposition. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
If you'll accept, I know lots of us would vote for you. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I went out this morning and it was cold. Then it got warmer. It appears to be getting colder right now. A couple of months ago it was warmer. I am not going to Antarctica this year so from my perspective it will be a warm winter. Oh someone is vandalising an article but I cannot tell you where. Never mind, nice sock spread the love :). Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Huh! --CrohnieGalTalk 13:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have lost my mind. Pay no attention :) Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Polargeo 2, as a topic-banned party in the CC case you have just made a personal attack against yourself, who is a topic-banned editor in the CC case. Why do you insist on continuing these battles across multiple forums fora forii places, despite the clear intent of arbcom? See WP:NSA. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I feel that the link under "even in the face of self-abuse" needs changing William M. Connolley (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
To what, might I ask? you foul-minded pervert... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I went to public school, I'll have you know, and that kind of joke is obligatory William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I was rather surprised that the link didn't go there... Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
SBHB, I'm deeply worried. From an ArbCom candidate I would expect to see more than just a singe WP:STUPIDABBREV. If I were uninvolved, I'd strongly consider blocking you for insufficient zeal in enforcing Wikipedia best practices! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
[12]! William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I think we all have! :) --CrohnieGalTalk 17:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mailing lists are so last century. What about a private wiki? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being startled at the suggestion that you should either ignore blatant bad edits, or else email someone else to fix them. I really can't see what the latter achieves at all. Surely this is "participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles", just harder to prove? Although perhaps I shouldn't give people ideas. Anyway, for what it's worth, I fail to see what a 2 week ban achieves that couldn't be achieved by saying "don't do that", especially when the case was not clear-cut. "Unncessarily draconian" springs to mind. pour encourager les autres? Or décourager, in this case. --Merlinme (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Malice is the word you're looking for William M. Connolley (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
you should . . . ignore blatant bad edits: that's the definition of "topic ban," and the culmination of months of deliberations. Removal of the most qualified editor from the CC articles and an editorial in the Wall Street Journal praising arbcom for having done so. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I thought Boris's post on NYB's talk page was particularly good. That showed up that Stephan as a bit of a whinger William M. Connolley (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Why private? Why not just post it at WR. As much as they hate you over there, they hate the arbcomm more. It would appear that one's actions on WR, no matter how egregious, incur no penalty over here. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

## ArbCom enforcement:Talk page access

WMC, I removed a section from your talk page where you are posting related to Climate Change. Do not put it back or create another section if you want to retain talk page access. And consider this a formal warning that your block will be extended if you continue to post about CC on your talk page. FloNightUser talk:FloNight 12:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC) [Note - I've removed the irritating hearts from your sig - William M. Connolley (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)]

So, you really are voting in favour of preferring off-wiki communication. Strange days William M. Connolley (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You may not realise it but if it had been me posting any of those links I would have just been indefed and had talkpage access taken away instantly. The admins who dislike you are at least cautious enough not to stick their necks out too much. The result is likely to be the same in the end though as they go around purposefully not hearing good arguments that get in their way until they get what they desire. Polargeo 2 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WMC, you're screwed no matter what you do. The Arbitration Committee acted in bad faith throughout the proceedings (not all members, I hasten to add, but that was the net effect). Since you aren't going to get a fair and impartial hearing regardless of what you do or don't do, I see no reason not to follow your conscience wherever that may lead. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather late in the day, the question appears to be one of diplomacy – an appearance of civility will overcome article content quality any day. Now that you're here, WMC, it would take uncharacteristic humility and an ability to let climate change articles go to hell in a handbasket without comment to have a hope of lifting the topic ban. Such are the wages of expertise and a commitment to good quality content, when assailed by political operators with a veneer of civility. As seems to be usual, I've no idea how to reach a satisfactory resolution of this situation. . . dave souza, talk 13:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
[Twattery redacted. Don't be such a delicate flower, daaaahling William M. Connolley (talk)] (that wasn't a reply to DS, that was to Bb, who seems to be a bit of a delicate flower. Not sure why his sig is gone from here, just noticed William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
Your denigration of other editors as "an army of followers who will support us no matter what and relentlessly attack anyone who is seen as opposition" says a lot. Anyone who disagrees with you is a Bad PersonTM and cannot possibly be acting from a principled difference in views, correct?

In short, your coming here to shove it in WMC's face and put down anyone who disagrees with you as WMC's "followers" and "armyis way out of line. You apologized to Awickert for your nasty "fan club" comments, but then you come here and make near-identical slams against WMC's "followers" and "army." That makes your apology ring hollow, as if the apology was merely a cynical act of convenience or dissimulation.

If you want to block me for saying this I don't mind. Take a free shot. It's obvious how much you enjoy that sort of thing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Clear violation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Casting_aspersions on his part. I trust that he will be just as quick to block himself for violating the arbcomm ruling. Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Beeblebrox is being self-consistent. He told me, "I apologize if I incorrectly implied you were a member of said fan club." He never apologized for his assertation there is a set of people with nothing better to do than to bumble around the internet in said fan club. I was very tempted to respond to his original comment here, but I clicked the "X" on the edit window before I finished. Awickert (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. I have struck portions of my comment accordingly, and apologize to Beeblebrox for having misrepresented his exchange with you. The remainder of my comment stands. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

### Breakage

I was right; Carc's offer was worthless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this a subtle reference to Slaughterhouse 5? What connection has it got to the global warming arena? If none, even in the fevered imagination of any watching activists, why not fix it yourself? Of course, now you've drawn attention to it, if anyone reading this page reverts it, they'll be accused of meatpuppetry by those more interested in procedure than in article content quality. . dave souza, talk 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
He can't fix it while blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Good point, I was forgetting the escalation of the topic ban. Fortunately a gifted photographer has remedied the problem. . dave souza, talk 15:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm just wondering how large the extension of the block is going to be over this instance. Since WMC is blocked - this (by the current "interpretation") would mean that he should be blocked further from Wikipedia, since his input is not wanted, and he just "gamed" that. To the blocking admins - please do so, because there is no substantial difference. [of course it is an "interpretation" of policy that is entirely outside of how WP normally functions - but that doesn't seem to have been a factor in the previous block]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• To answer your question, Kim, making references on one's own talk page (while blocked) to edits needed on articles outside a topic ban, is not (usually) disruptive (it is silly, though, because the real solution is to recognise why you were blocked, to make undertakings to change the conduct that led to the block, and to request an unblock by asking for a new statement to be transferred to the current WP:AE appeal). Making links to edits that need fixing in articles covered by a topic ban, however, is equivalent to using user talk space for discussing or proposing changes to articles. That sort of activity should properly take place on article talk pages, but that would breach the topic ban. When someone is topic banned from an area, they can't retreat to their user space and use that as a parallel world to carry on editing by proxy in the same area. Well, they can, but the outcome is what we've seen here. Previous examples (by other editors) of this 'smoke signals from userspace' approach were, in hindsight, not a good idea.
• To expand on that, the Wikipedia userspace has specific functions, though, traditionally, wide latitude is given to how people use their userspace, but that doesn't mean that userspace is a place where 'anything goes'. User talk space, in particular, is where users often interact in a less formal manner (as seen by some of the postings on this and other user talk pages). But ultimately, if a particular discussion or activity is better carried out in a different namespace or venue, then the discussion should move there. Really, user talk space should be a place to contact people, to have side-discussions, to have off-topic conversations, or be a waystation to other places, where the real work on the encyclopedia is done. It shouldn't be a place for long discussions on content to be hosted, or for perennial arguments to continue endlessly. It certainly shouldn't be a place for article changes to be proposed or discussed.
It boils down to this: what, fundamentally, is user talk space for? Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
No, none of this will do. Everything you have said amounts to advisory: nothing justifies a block for TP usage. The only explanation for that is fear and paranoia on the part of arbcomm, which I think is the correct explanation (which is to say: although you were too stupid to recognise me as an expert, you know full well that others aren't, and value my opinions. You know that contrary to the gaily-experssed opinions of the arbs in this case, I'm not just one-of-many. Therefore, unlike in previous cases, you need to crush all dissent). The fundamental point is that the edits I made to my talkpage were not disruptive: the disruption comes from the responses. And by that I don't mean the responses from people editing, but responses from the shit-stirrers like TS and EfV. Had the shit-stirring been ignored, as it should have been, there would have been no problem. Retrospectively bolting on a talk-page ban, and then jumping through hoops to justify it (as you have above), is fundamentally dishonest William M. Connolley (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I advised WMC privately to be careful with his talk page use, but he is absolutely right about the fundamentals of this. The problem is not what he posts to his talk page. The problem was the reactions and how seriously they were taken. This was a basis for a formal warning asking him to stop, but it was no basis for blocking him without a warning. Hans Adler 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth i have two problems with this: "Sillyness" is not a blockable offence. And changing the rules retroactively (with rather foolish rationalization) is bad practice. Can you explain exactly why ArbCom wasn't crystal clear on this? Despite having been asked the question in advance? All you had to do was say: "The users own talk page is henceforth included in the topic-ban - it was an oversight by us not to specify this." [btw. i think this is/was a really bad idea by WMC - what i'm protesting is the abuse of process] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That is blatant vandalism, but... {sigh}. Well, I've said what I think. As you say, you are responsible for your own behaviour. I will now fix said blatant vandalism, assuming someone else hasn't already done so. --Merlinme (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't worry, its not a Cl Ch article. But I only gave you an hour to spot it, which isn't really fair William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll take your word for it that the ozone layer doesn't come under climate change. I can see why that's true... and I can see why that's a bit, umm... possibly contentious by those looking for reasons to eliminate you. But you understand the limits much better than I do. Keep identifying vandalism and I will keep fixing. Hopefully no-one can object to removing vandalism. --Merlinme (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• I came back here to respond to some of the points made, but I see WMC has hatted the discussion (presumably not interested in discussing further the points I made above). If anyone else who responded above would like to follow-up, they are welcome to do so on my talk page until a more suitable venue is found, as I think a discussion on what user talk space is really for would be useful.
• Any further points specifically about WMC's block (other than what I've said below), I will reserve for any appeal that is filed, though my stance remains the same: just because user talk space (or any venue) is not explicitly included in a topic ban, that doesn't mean actions in that name space or venue are allowed and/or sensible. The sensible course of action (when it was clear that there was disagreement over this) would have been for WMC to file a clarification stating specifically that he wished to use his user talk space to point out vandalism and other 'breakage' within the topic area and ask ArbCom to rule on that (possibly asking at WP:AE first before taking to ArbCom). If WMC would like to file such a request for clarification, he could request an unblock solely to do that (group clarifications are less helpful - see what Biophys said here - though the result of any such clarification would still be notified to the other editors it affected).

If WMC made an undertaking to abide by the result of such a clarification, he would likely remain unblocked. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth, that looks like a promising approach and I commend it to WMC. . . dave souza, talk 06:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm baffled. What point is there being unblocked only to file an appeal that C has already decided to reject? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@C: sorry, you gave up replying, so I decided to tidy up. I've unhatted it now so you can reply William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@C: this specific point (use of talk pages) was raised directly during the case. Not a single arb bothered to take the time to say that use of talk pages was forbidden. You cannot possibly complain that people would suspect that they were permitted, given the precedent for doing exactly that. Even now, it is noticeable (I think) that no arb has forbidden it explicitly. I can only asume that this is because you don't want to be forced to block your friends William M. Connolley (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

C had previously based his argument for "leaving the CC topic well behind, unwatch all the CC pages" on the assumption that the rest of the community would take over the task of maintaining all the pages without any problems. Then from C's POV, the only problem with with not doing that is staying involved in the topic area longer than necessary, which is less than optimal.

However, the fact that acts of vandalism are not always reverted in a reasonable time (because it takes time for the community to begin monitoring the large number of CC articles) and that this has been used to bait editors at AE to play the same sort of game (the, as Jehochman put it, "ban my opponent" game) that sank the General Sanctions board is, of course, noted by C and other Arbitrators. So, they may well be open to reconsider things. Count Iblis (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I read Carcharoth's post as something of an attempted olive branch. Basically, if you apply to ArbCom for permission to notify CC vandalism on your talk page, C would support it. I would be very surprised if Carcharoth had made the suggestion with the intention of rejecting it. What would be the point? It would just be a waste of everyone's time.
ArbCom as a whole might feel differently and reject it. And you might feel that the issue should have been dealt with clearly before; you might feel that being blocked for something which wasn't clear is injust (and you know I would agree with you). But if there's a chance of making progress, I would have thought it's worth trying. --Merlinme (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
You are optimistic than me. I see C's post as an attempt to appear reasonable whilst offering nothing. It is a cynical attempt to deflect future blame / his conscience (insert obvious comment here). But to the substance: there should be no need for this Kremlinology / reading the goat's entrails. If C is in favour of lifting the use-talk-pages ban, he simply needs to say so. There is no new evidence to offer; all the sane people have already pointed out that the case decision doesn't cover user talk; the arbs have studiously ignored that point; they aren't suddenly going to change their minds (ditto) now. As for your idea that C wouldn't suggest it because it would be a waste of veryone's time: that very clearly is too optimistic. This entire stupid ban has been a vast waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm essentially an optimist who prefers to believe the best about people. You clearly don't see it like that. But let's put it this way: what exactly is lost by following Carcharoth's suggestion? The worst that can happen is that it comes to nothing. It might take up some of your Wikipedia time, but given the topic ban I'm assuming you have some time you would normally spend defending CC articles (and essentially this would be defending CC articles). The best that can happen is that it is agreed that you are allowed to alert people to vandalism in CC articles. --Merlinme (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• The point I was trying to make (and it feeds back into what I said earlier about taking a step back and considering what user talk pages are really for) is that this is not the right venue to seek clarification of an ArbCom case remedy (in this case the boundaries of a topic ban). All that has happened so far is that various arbs (but not all) have opined in various places (such as the arbitration committee noticeboard talk page and this user talk page and possibly some other places). None of those are formal clarifications, and none of them carry the weight of an en banc clarification from the committee as a whole. The correct venue for a formal clarification (one where you should get responses from most of the other arbitrators and not just a few of them, and a venue where you will get more detailed explanations than can be given here) is: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification (please note what I said earlier that it is possible to request to be unblocked solely for filing such a clarification request, or to ask for a clarification request to be filed on your behalf). Having said that, I will now stick to what I said earlier and not comment further here, and I'll wait for something to appear there if anyone thinks that a formal clarification is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
We seem to be going around in circles, whilst you are being pointlessly bureaucratic. All the arbs have seen this block. Not one has felt any need to say "hang on, this block might not be valid, we need a clarification here". OTOH none have had the guts to clearly state that it does apply. I don't see any chance of you being any less weaselly elsewhere. I'll file a clarification request when I'm able to, but I know full well that you are just wasting my time William M. Connolley (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
@ WMC, As an ancient bureaucrat may I advise that preparing your case and formally requesting unblocking for the sole purpose of seeking clarification is the way to get the issue properly examined. Merely complaining that others should have read your talk page leaves the way open to plausible deniability, setting out the detailed case at least shows reasonable behaviour on your own part which should be taken into account, and puts the issues on record. Apart from anything else, it has the prospect of incremental success, which inaction lacks. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think we're going round in circles, too. I think C's offer is worthless, for the reaons I've given. Like I said: I'll file a clarification request when I'm able to, but I know full well that you are just wasting my time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
@DS: well, I was right and you were wrong: C's offer was indeed worthless [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

## Secret message

Your conduct is being discussed at my talk page (though only peripherally). If there is anything you need to say in response please post it here and I may or may not meatpuppet it onto my page, depending on whether I do or don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sekrit answer: can you tell SF that I saw someone comment of 8 significant edit wars to break out during the case, WMC was a primary participant in seven of them is twaddle (you may of course use rather more polite phrasing, or not, at your pleasure) and that commenting on such a case by merely repeating tittle-tattle is a poor way for an Arb to behave.
As for Coren, I don't think there is much hope of cradcking the veil of denial, but H's comment xhez NYB first, that you should immediately cease all back-room negotiations is interesting - perhaps you could ask C if any deals were done? Also, I'd be grateful if you could entirely ignore C's advice about whipping the incident into a froth your risk - that is all self-serving on C's part. They are embarrased by the stupidity of the situation they have created and are desperately hoping everyone will shut up.
As for RD, you should point out the anomaly of my being blocked while Cla gets off free William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
@Boris: as to EfV, I'd suggest a check against TS William M. Connolley (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbs stuff; not much use
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Actually, he doesn't have to tell.. I still have the page watched from our last contretemps.. It's not quite tittle-tattle, it's from the proposed decision.And I actually understated it, it wasn't 7 of 8, it was 11 of 12. Four of the nine articles involved in the twelve edit wars are biographies of living people. These four articles accounted for six of the twelve edit wars. Almost 30 editors were involved in the twelve edit wars that resulted in these page protections; of these editors those involved in four or more of the edit wars are: WMC – 11, Marknutley – 9, ChrisO – 6, Cla68 – 5, ATren – 4, Verbal -4. SirFozzie (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Polargeo - 0 Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but its wrong, as I told a couple of arbs on the case. As you'll notice, that FoF didn't pass; quoting failed FoF's is careless. Check NYB's comment on it and subsequent discussion on his talk page. All that trash was the reason Rlvese had to be kicked off the case, remember? (oh, and I didn't like your shouting so I've downgraded it) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) SirFozzie, it is unwise to assume that those figures are accurate. During the case, the numbers were at something like 7 out of 8, then a "war" occurred in which WMC was not involved, and the numbers became 7 of 9 - and then miraculoulsy they became 11 of 12. So, even leaving aside whether "involved" was a reasonable for (say) a single edit, the simple counting in this case was inaccurate, at least it was at the point I checked it. I decided not to post about it to the PD talk page as it became clear the finding wasn't going to be included in the decision. However, I think you should be aware that there are question marks over those numbers, at least in the minds of some observers such as myself. EdChem (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Brad and other Arbs called them factual.. but yes. I understand where you're coming from. I still think that it was pretty factual that when an edit war broke out during the case that it was very much more likely than not that WMC (and a couple folks from the so called "other side") were at the heart of it. And to cut off another little meme before it can sink in with others, Rlevse was not kicked off writing the case, either by you, the committee or any single arb. SirFozzie (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Rlvese: don't believe you, and neither does anyone else. Actually, Brad and other Arbs called them factual. Twaddle. Subsequent to that, NYB said reviewing, which is why that FoF failed (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Proposed decision#Edit warring on Climate Change related articles). That FoF is wrong; when called on reporting tittle-tattle your response is merely to weasel. Which is hardly surprising; most of the other arbs have been very closed-minded too William M. Connolley (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
These figures should always have been just a part of the FoF. The other major part should have been an analysis of each individual editors positive contributions and the interests of each individual editor. By not doing that you get remedies that don't work (for some). E.g. Cla68 has a totally different profile than William as far as their postive contributions and interests are concerned. Remedy 3 is far more effective for Cla68 than for William.
Accepting the FoF regarding edit wars for argument's sake, a remedy for William that would have worked given his positive contributions and interests, would be something that constrains him on climate science articles, away from BLP and articles on the politics and various controversies surrounding CC. You can think of a list of approved articles that William would be allowed to edit. I have the feeling that such solutions didn't make it, because William would attract too much attention. But then, when William edits uncontroverial aspects of CC articles, that attention is always part of the problem that one has to get rid of anyway. Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) WMC, I'm going to be very blunt: your delusions of persecution are unfounded. I don't know why you are under the impression that you are, somehow important or significant enough to warrant vast conspiracies to victimize you. You were not singled out. You were not discussed any more or less than the other bit players in a tiresome dispute over the CC area. The only reason you have been further sanctioned is that, unlike most of the other disputants, you continue to battle your way around. Rlevse was not "kicked out" of anything, certainly not on your account. Any illusion to the contrary is nothing but delusions of grandeur and importance. — Coren (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How much behind-the-scenes lobbying was going on with parties or other interested individuals? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, absolutely none beyond the usual emailed pleas for special treatment (and even those were surprisingly few for a case of this magnitude). Emailing the committee during a case and about the case normally has no result other than annoy the arbs; though in rare cases there are private elements that are taken into account in the decision -- none such in this case. I think there was two or three direct inquiries about specific points sent out by arbs during the case (I'd have to trawl a few thousand emails' worth of archive to check); but as far as I can remember they did not raise any issue of note and did not affect the decision.

There was, of course, discussion of the case on the mailing list — though nowhere to the extent that some people imagine — but they were not substantive points but points of process; things like coordination of who was to write new proposals, suggested rewordings, exhortations to vote and get the effing case done. But, unlike what some people imagine, the actual nature of the decision gets very little attention on the list: you'll see the vast majority of that discussion and give-and-take on the decision page proper. — Coren (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're being blunt: I think that you, like SF, are lying. Repeating the same lies doesn't make them any more true William M. Connolley (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I know for a fact that there was more going with non-arbs than "two or three direct inquiries about specific points," because I received emails (unbidden) from one or more arbs about the case. I don't think it's necessarily the case that Coren is lying; he can't be expected to know what other arbs are sending from their personal accounts as opposed to official arbcom mail. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think there is any question that you are sincere in your beliefs. Given that they do not match reality, constructing an elaborate fantasy of conspiracy behind the scenes to explain the discrepancy is indeed the common, if regrettable, reaction. I'll not overstay my already frayed welcome here. SBHB, if you want to continue this discussion, you are welcome on my talk page. — Coren (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (Note: The first two statements were a reply to WMC, not SBHB — Coren (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC))
Hmm. Obviously the emails I think I received were imaginary. I'll have to quit taking all that DMT for breakfast. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Post the emails on William's WikiLeaks page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Faced with a choice between trusting you or Coren, I will certainly pick you William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2) :::::If that's the case, why wasn't more of the case discussed out in the open? I think that is what the problem is with this and what the editors here are trying to say. More conversations were needed out in the open. --CrohnieGalTalk 17:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

There was, of course, discussion of the case on the mailing list — though nowhere to the extent that some people imagine — but they were not substantive points but points of process; things like coordination of who was to write new proposals, suggested rewordings, exhortations to vote and get the effing case done. But, unlike what some people imagine, the actual nature of the decision gets very little attention on the list: you'll see the vast majority of that discussion and give-and-take on the decision page proper. (Coren) This is the most alarming thing I've seen in all the vast verbiage I've seen devoted to the case. I, like most rational people I expect, assumed that long delays during the proposed decision process, and the lack of workshopping and transparency in the discussion of the proposed decision, meant that, for whatever reason, the committee had decided to conduct their deliberations on the case behind closed doors. If this (bolded statement) is true and there were no substantive discussions on the decision behind closed doors, if in fact the only deliberations were the few brief exchanges that were visible on the proposed decision page, then I don't know what to say. I wouldn't go so far as WMC has done in questioning the veracity of Coren's assertion, I'll only say that to believe that the statement is not true is less damaging to ArbCom's credibility than believing that it's true, because believing that it's true means accepting that there were actually no deliberations of substance, which is not acceptable. Woonpton (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ironically, I've started a mailing list discussion on this very point. But it is an important point that deserves wider input. I suggest you find a suitable venue to ask arbitrators as a group how they use the mailing list and what purpose it serves in general and how to balance mailing list discussion with on-wiki interaction with case parties and case page discussions. What I will say here, though, is that is is dangerous to make assumptions what is being discussed and what is not being discussed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth, if I may ask, would I be wrong if I inferred from your comment here that my comment on Jimbo's talk page was incorrect in its substance? EdChem (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of what you said there was correct, though it is possible to spend "an enormous amount of time" on a case without there being "considerable email activity". There was some e-mail activity (sometimes quite extensive), but always less than people seem to think. I would put a more precise figure on it, but threads drift off-topic, so that is difficult. The bits I found myself agreeing with were the following: "I suspect that some editors will probably be expected to show considerably more reform before an appeal will be successful" and "Hopefully some of the more valuable editors amongst the banned will demonstrate again their value to wikipedia and so receive more favourable treatment when it comes to appeals". I should note here that due to the timing of the case, and my decision (stated on my user page) not to stand in the upcoming ArbCom elections, I won't actually be on the committee for any appeals at the 6-month mark, but I will continue to follow arbitration matters (especially those related to cases I was active on) and comment if asked to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
No, EdChem, you weren't wrong at all, though detailed discussions mostly involved sub-groups rather than the committee as a whole. The case went through several phases, with considerable discussion among the drafting arbitrators in the earliest phase. Later, Shell and I worked on individual findings and she and I discussed many of those too. Several discussions, en banc, took place to see what broad consensus existed for various approaches but, as is always the case, these don't bind arbitrators to voting in one direction or another on the individual principles, FoFs, etc once posted. This can be seen in the number of principles and FoFs which either didn't pass or which were substantially amended. Both Coren and Carcharoth are absolutely right in saying that the public perception of extensive and detailed behind-the-scenes horse-trading in smoke-filled rooms is inaccurate.  Roger talk 08:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
We've got one arb saying the mailing list discussions were few and "not substantive points but points of process" and another arb saying "several discussions, en banc, took place to see what broad consensus existed for various approaches," along with several other inconsistencies.

But the most troubling point remains Coren's statement that "the vast majority of that discussion and give-and-take on the decision page proper." Since discussion on the decision page was perfunctory this demands the conclusion that there was practically no deliberation amongst the arbs regarding the merits of the case.

In short, you can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that there was "considerable discussion among the drafting arbitrators" and on the other that the discussion was mainly limited to the perfunctory comments we saw on the decision page. You guys aren't very good at this; if you care about retaining the sliver of credibility you have left you'll need to agree on a common story and stick with it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

## AE Appeal

There being no consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn your block I have closed your AE appeal accordingly. Your appeal is denied and the terms of the block are in force. Should you not agree with this decision you may appeal the matter directly to Arbcom. --WGFinley (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Your wisdom is broken, but I cannot fault your ability to count William M. Connolley (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Lest I forget [15] William M. Connolley (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

## Time for a new strategy

I don't know about you, but I think all this drama is unnecessary. My three-part plan:

1. Stop editing here.
2. Check in now and again to see what is going to pot and what isn't.
3. After some length of time, publish an assessment somewhere.

Truth being, if most of the craziness in article space here ends up being a "flash in the pan" that is soon corrected without your help, then you might as well use your free time for fun and all is well (better, in fact: we've proven that you don't need to watch and defend the pages, and you can thank the arbs for your newfound free time). However, if lots of things have gone horribly wrong, then it will look like ArbComm's decision did not work out so well and WP is suffering quality-wise as a result.

I say this because (1) I don't think that anything that you would do will make arbcomm revoke your topic ban come 6 months, and (2) regardless of wording, CC is beyond all bounds at the moment (and per #1 will remain so indefinitely). So I can see no reason to do anything but sit and watch. Awickert (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AW's cunning plan
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Oh, I think ArbCom would revoke the ban in a suspended animation passenger's heartbeat if WMC would promise to play nice, and actually do so. Some of the most uncivil blocked / banned editors are back here feeding their Wikipedia addictions with a new account and a fresh start. I thought the block was nonsense on a technical level, but if it weren't this it would be something else. I wish I had some constructive advice but I'm stumped. Anyway, WMC has contributed quite a bit to Wikipedia and by extension the world, so... thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
As ever, WMC has pushed right up to the boundary of normal playing nice, and acted in a constructive way which has been accepted from other (in this case topic-banned) editors in the past. For example, responding to discussion here by saying "liars" isn't really civil, is unwise, and is certainly undiplomatic. It's probably twattery too, but such terms should be avoided, not least because they have different cultural connotations across the globe.
Carcharoth proposes a sensible way forward at #Talk page access above. @ WMC, my strong recommendation is to do what's suggested, politely and carefully. . . dave souza, talk 06:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

@AW: I'm sure you mean well but my reply to MM applies. @Wd: I can't parse your first sentence. @Ds: I don't understand your assessment of C's proposal; see above William M. Connolley (talk) 14:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

AW's comments seem sensible, if "Wiki self-preservation" is your aim, as may not be. The degree of hostility that I'm seeing directed at you is remarkable. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't think that your comments @MM applied. I don't care about martyrdom, etc., or any dramas. Just seems like your participation in your area of expertise is currently and indefinitely not permitted, so there's only one option left. Of course, Scotty brings up my first major assumption, which may be wrong (my others are that you are not going to run around and make FAs on other things that you don't care so much about and that arbcomm won't unban you if you don't). But if I am wrong about #1, then what is your motive? Awickert (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
[Aside: Yes, the degree of hostility is stupid. Insulting one another online is childish, and anonymous users giving insults is cowardly as well.] Awickert (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
@ WMC, my assessment of Carcharoth's proposal made in the #Breakage section above (dunno if the heading changed or if I got it wrong) is that you should request unblocking to file a request to ArbCom that they rule on a clarification in specific respect of your wish to use your user talk space to point out vandalism and other 'breakage' within the topic area.
Perhaps Carcharoth will advise further, but it would seem reasonable that you could then point out that your noting such breakage in a non-confrontational way on your own talk page is not specifically ruled out in the ArbCom decision, and is established by past practice as well as by the common sense point that the novel interpretation of this restriction is much more restrictive than the standard Exceptions to limited bans, which usually allows "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as replacing a page with obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree." . . dave souza, talk 19:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth's proposal is at once interesting and a bit confusing. He mixes past ("the sensible course of action...would have been") and future ("if WMC would like to file") tenses in such a way that it isn't clear whether he's describing what WMC should have done, of whether an appeal remains a viable option. So clarification from Carcharoth would be helpful before going further. In any event Arbcom have already expended a great deal of discussion and political capital saying that although it was not stated at the time they meant for ban to apply even to innocuous comments on users' own talk pages. Under the circumstances I doubt that they would do a complete volte-face in response to an appeal but who knows. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
C's proposal makes no sense at all. If C thinks that it is unclear whether the arbcomm decision cover talk pages, then it would immeadiately be clear to him that the block on me is unjust: it cannot possibly be reasonable to block someone with no warning for something that arbcomm have not clearly stated is blockable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Some other arbs may or may not think so, C's proposal gives a way forward to raising that formally for ArbCom discussion, putting the point over and giving at least a reasonable prospect that you will be unblocked and authorised to continue making careful and non-confrontational reports of breakage on your talk page. No point in just shaking the prison bars demanding justice when a way to justice is open to you. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of other things to edit but I doubt that if I were WMC I would bother to do so in the near term. FA work is fine and I'm sure WMC could assist in non CC related article improvement but once a bulls eye get painted on anyone of this high a profile on this project, someone is always going to be the ready to play smackdown if such an editor so much as twitches "incorrectly"...my understanding as it was clarified to me was that user talkpages, even your own user talkpage are taboo for issues related to the topic ban.--MONGO 03:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
What we have here is a sort of Cultural Revolution where intellectuals are surrounded and shouted down by brainwashed youths in the strident and peculiar language of revolutionary Wikislogans. Your bourgeois "knowledge" is outmoded, your glasses have been crushed beneath their boots, and you must make a fresh start at the bottom of the new workers' hierarchy, scrubbing toilets and washing dishes.24.18.132.13 (talk) 08:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
@DS: All the other arbs have seen this - but anyway, we're managing to have the same conversation in two places in one page, which isn't helpful. @MONGO: I've never been intersted in the FA hoops William M. Connolley (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Choose your place, will continue at #Breakage unless advised otherwise, in triplicate. . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

## Shell / Rlevse / LHVU

Anyone else noticed Shell's untrue Arbiters don't make accusations, other parties (oftentimes involved in the same dispute) present evidence, suggest findings and so on? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse: [16] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuff
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Loss of an arbitrator? --CrohnieGalTalk 12:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
He seems miffed at a couple of things unrelated to arbcom. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think this is entirely to do with DYK. Polargeo 2 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Bit of a shame really William M. Connolley (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't just DYK. He was an author of the FA on the main page for Halloween, and was accused of plagiarism and a copyvio in a way that exacerbated the damage from the attacks on DYK. I suspect (on little evidence) that he was also fairly burned out recently. I had issues with Rlevse as an arbitrator, but his work at DYK was tireless and of an extremely high standard. I for one am very sad to see him lost from the project entirely, his contribution is sorely missed. EdChem (talk) 13:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No-one's perfect, and judge not, lest ye be judged, comes to mind. Both DYK and FA promote competition among editors, rather than a primary interest in providing factual well-balanced info for everyone, and FA in my experience can be pretty stressful. Plagiarism is subject to assessment, and it's not all that obvious where to strike the right balance between faithfully following the source and finding your own way of saying things. Rlevse obviously did a lot of good work, but for whatever reason may have felt it appropriate to cut corners in producing DYK and FA articles. More tolerance of imperfection and focus on improving article quality rather than on getting rid of editors would be a Good Thing. . . . dave souza, talk 13:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to do away with the whole FA process. It does not evaluate article quality in a meaningful way, and promotes a reward-driven mentality. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Agree. We all know how difficult it can be to tread the line of proper recognition of sources. I believe I fall the right side of the line but then I don't have 20 DYKs and 10 FAs (I have always had a certain disdain of editors with long lists of DYKs running for RfA, with that as their main selling point). Rlevse was clearly trying to attribute to sources properly and trying not to cross the line. However, when you have skipped close to the line so much and the wikiwolves sink their teeth into you there is little you can do (that goes for many aspects of wikipedia). Polargeo 2 (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yup, the entire reward-driven mentality is broken. And, of course, the recent arbcomm decision just reinforces the brokenness. Incidentally, in case I'm misunderstood: I meant, it is a shame that he didn't stand down for being a rubbish arb, which is why he really deserved to go William M. Connolley (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes but he was no less rubbish than most of the rest of them. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you are wrong there - he was rubbish and malicious too William M. Connolley (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I get the impression most of the "advanced" permissions users have a tendency to be malicious. It seems to me that those who crave power tend not to think so much when exercising it and just play their political games. Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I'm puzzled; is this extremely subtle sarcasm, or do you mean he was no more rubbish than the rest of them?
Re: Rlevse, I find it hard to believe that people opining above are familiar with the facts of the matter. I'm aware that the contradictory rules of Wikipedia leave editors walking a fine line between "stick to the source" and "don't stick to the source too closely" but this was way on the far side of that line. That people are dismissing such blatant copying as an example of "wikiwolves sinking their teeth" into Rlevse when he should have been given the benefit of the doubt, is baffling to me. It seems to me that he was given altogether too much benefit of the doubt during the FA process, and I've been surprised to learn that there is nothing in the process of reviewing articles for FA that requires that fidelity to sources be checked, let alone too-close-copying of copyrighted sources. That an entire passage of mostly directly copied text remained in an article being featured on the main page is a serious problem for the encyclopedia. That Rlevse still doesn't seem to understand what was wrong with directly lifting text from USA Today, and is still reportedly angry at those who uncovered the problem rather than sorry to have embarrassed the encyclopedia by "cutting corners," as dave put it, is the last straw on the balance of my judgment of him as an arbitrator (which BTW is based on his actions in an area far from CC; I've never followed CC except for the proposed decision and its talk page).
re Shell: She has been hounded relentlessly by a couple of guys with a terminal case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, who still won't let it go even after being told repeatedly to stop; to take one remark out of context out of that whole tendentious discussion to make a point of your own seems to me a cheap shot. Woonpton (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
As to Rlevse this is not the place to go into the details of copyright, I agree he made mistakes but I also think the wolves are ripping him to shreds over them in a very undignified way. As to Shell who are the hounders? fnord Tell us and the cabal will get them for you/her. Policing wikipedia behind the sceens is what we do!! fnord Polargeo 2 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Mistakes? That reminds me of the famous saying "mistakes were made" excusing a major coverup on the part of high-level US administration. At any rate, I don't know where you're seeing "wolves" ripping Rlevse to shreds; it must be on some page I'm not watching. All I'm seeing is people making excuses for him and defending him and leaving tearful messages on his talk page. You're right, this isn't the place to debate copyright, but copyright really isn't that difficult. Every now and then, IRL, I run across copies of things I've written (here I'm talking about general-purpose writing, not scientific or statistical writing) taken and used in places where I never gave permission for it to be used, by people who never asked my permission to copy the text. People think that as long as they attribute the text to the writer, they have satisfied the requirements of copyright. No, you can't copy copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner; that's what copyright means.Woonpton (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Shall we start with MZMs fairly sly angled comment at the crats noticeboard or shall wee look at the baying hounds against DYK at ANI or any other forum. Self righteousness is not a good servant on wikipedia. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
If you really think the question at the bureaucrats noticeboard (which seems a very reasonable question to me; if Rlevse comes back is he to be considered as having left under a cloud or not?) is an example of "wolves tearing Rlevse to shreds" then we apparently aren't speaking the same language, which makes it difficult to have a reasonable conversation. As for the questions about DYK, they seem very legitimate questions to me, and the information that has come to light about the DYK process during that discussion doesn't reflect well on the encyclopedia IMO. But it looks like we're not going to agree about that either, nor on whether raising questions about problems in the DYK process constitutes ripping Rlevse to shreds, nor apparently, by extension, on whether he should have kept his arb seat after the violations were discovered. So let's just agree to disagree and call it a day. Woonpton (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
@ Woomption, and ignoring the obscure remarks by P2 et al., "cutting corners" was my kind way of putting it, but my feeling is that Rievse did a lot of good work without me having any view on his article contributions or Arbing – on a very strict reading of plagiarism, it's quite possible that many of us have transgressed while trying hard not to plagiarise the source. R went rather further, whether through haste or incompetence I can't tell, but to me that's a reason for counselling and improvemnt, not a blocking offence. Having said that, I don't agree with R et al. about the blocking of WMC, arbs would do better to acknowledge human imperfection and make decisions aimed at improving article content rather than punishing fairly minor transgressions. But of course that's not their remit. Dunno where Shell came into this conversation. Just noticed who started this section. . . dave souza, talk 17:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, *I*d also forgotten where Shell came in. No, I don't think that is a cheap shot. I was pissed off when (during the Abd case) Rlevse came well off the fence as neutral arbiter and started presenting evidence; I raised the propriety of this at the time and was fobbed off. So for Shell to pretend that it doesn't happen is just not acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'll concede the point. Woonpton (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Hold on, this *is* the .flame newsgroup, isn't it? You're not allowed to be reasonable :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Please don't be too hard on Shell. I think she got it wrong on this point but she's basically decent. We all have our foibles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Agree with all about Rlevse. Disagree about arbs focussing on content. This argument is extremely weak, all the arbs needed to do in the recent case was apply appropriate considered tailored sanctions to remedy editor behaviour and address the concerns regarding the probation. In the end they applied a lazy one size fits all punitive sanction which sanctioned most editors far more than was fair and maybe one or two editors got off without being banned from wikipedia. This failled to address the problems in the area 'going forward' I am probably at the limit of what I can discuss now even though it is about a sanction against myself!! Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

## Climate change amendment: notification of three motions posted

Following a request for amendment to the Climate change case, three motions have been posted regarding the scope of topic bans, the appeal of topic bans, and a proposal to unblock two editors.

For and on behalf of the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I see that Coren is as rubbish as ever: engaging in battleground behavior on their talk page is deliberate disinformation, or possibly a confession of ignorance; it is hard to know which is worse. As for the implied equivalence between me and MN: I reject it, of course (@SP: thanks for noticing this obvious point, even if it was too subtle for the arbs. Please continue your attempts to make RD see sense). Still, there is one saving grace of this nonsense: we'll find out whether Carc's offer was just a waste of time, or not William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Um, well, yes. It was a waste of time. No surprises there William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The high point of this silliness: [17] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

## 1 week block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text `{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}` below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Adambro (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request reason:

I don't even know what I've been blocked for. Where is this incivility? William M. Connolley (talk) 10:57 pm, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Your incivility has been adequately outlined at ANI, here. Once you learn to use civilised, polite language, you'll be one of the most productive users here. Unfortunately, however, your persistence in throwing foul language at other users creates discord within the community and discourages other users from editing, and as it's extremely likely you'll do it again if unblocked early, I see no reason to unblock you. Civility is more than a policy: it's one of the five pillars. If you're not interested in following the five pillars, I suggest finding a project other than Wikipedia. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me for busting in, but the link above is dead. So just where is the basis for this block documented? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, it never was William M. Connolley (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You really haven't bothered look at this properly, have you? I was tidying up my talk page. I was not "throwing foul language at other users". And you have absolutely no reason to believe "it's extremely likely you'll do it again if unblocked early". Can you point to *any* incivilty from me off my own talk page, which is the only one you've left me access to? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
[Incivility redacted - WMC], whilst I appreciate you're upset and that this is a big step to take, but I've looked into this for the past few hours and I'm convinced that this is the best solution. I have pointed to you calling other users incompetent, calling other users twats, and I could now point to you calling other users idiots. Your doing this is not conducive to a pleasant atmosphere for editing; it drives other users away, which in turn disrupts the project. I don't often put my foot down, and I hardly ever comment on user conduct in a public forum such as this: but this is one of the few cases where I don't honestly believe you're willing to work with other people in a friendly atmosphere. You might be a good article writer, you're no doubt a perfectly amiable chap in real life: but Wikipedia is more than being a good article writer. Wikipedia is a community, and if you can't bring yourself to the same level of pleasant, polite discourse as other users - however wrong, stupid, twattish or incompetent they might be - then you need to consider whether Wikipedia is a community you're happy to be a part of. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I endorse your block review CML. It does seem very sensible to show that such an attitude towards basic policies is not helping the project.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've pointedly ignored my " Can you point to *any* incivilty from me off my own talk page"? (I should have said, recently, for some reasonable defn of recent - since the close of the Cl Ch case, say?) If you can't, then your comments become rather less plausible - reading this talk page is entirely optional for users and is not required for construction of the encyclopedia. Oh - and given the role you're taking here, I'd rather you didn't address me as William - it implies a degree of acquaintance that does not exist - you are English, aren't you? Please see User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I call bullshit, CML. There's a double standard here, where editors can take free shots at WMC, myself, and others who agree with the scientific consensus but if we dare get out of line there's hell to pay. Where are the civility police when people post things like "Are most of you who are alarmists & cultists also gay? I'm looking to pack fudge." Or "If there was a god, you would go to hell, for being dishonest & immoral, but your days on Earth, in freedom which you oppress are numbered, until you go to jail or worse." Or "your input will be disregarded by me and any with two brain cells to rub together." Or when an admin, who should know better says "Who gives a fuck about Billy Tantrum's non scientific opinions anyway?" The list goes on and on and on and on. So spare us the sanctimonious lecture. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Also: I question your impartiality to review this unblock. You had stated uneqivocally much earlier [18] that "A one week block is certainly appropriate" which means you'd already made up your mind. That makes you unfit to review the block William M. Connolley (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the myriad of questions here, you'll understand if my reply is a little lengthy. [PA redacted - WMC] (I hope this is an appropriate way of addressing you? I dislike the informal 'WMC', but I'll call you what you prefer), I can certainly point out where you've been incivil, but it's not on your talk page - it's in an edit summary, which is just as inappropriate. As to my impartiality, I'm as impartial a user as you'll find here, as before tonight I haven't been involved in Climate Change or with yourself despite us being on the project for nigh on five years together. Nevertheless, you are welcome to make another unblock request if you wish.
Boris, I think what you're bringing up is a different issue - or at least it's an issue not directly related to this unblock request - but at first glance I would have blocked in each of those cases as well. I know feelings run high on such contentious issues, but there's never an excuse for incivility from either side. If, in future, you find yourself being harassed by people not willing to work within the community's pillars, by all means contact me and I'll warn and block as appropriate. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Calling your bluff, CML. Do you think this recent comment is appropriate for an admin? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course not, but I'd like to keep this on-topic, regarding WMC's block and WMC's block alone. Bring up an ANI or Wikiquette report about other user's conduct, point me in the right direction, and I'll give you my views there.. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, CML, that's nonsense. You have the diff right in front of you. You have three options to choose from: Block, speak to, no action. Just pick one. NW (Talk) 00:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate what you're saying, but it'd hardly be appropriate - it'd look like Boris calling my bluff had forced me into warning or blocking LHVU, and the entire point of me warning him would be lost in the ensuing drama. The key point here is that everyone involved wants equal, fair treatment: so let's make it as equal and fair as possible. Let's bring this up at ANI, exactly where WMC's civility issue was brought up. There's naught more equal than equal treatment. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Your words were "If, in future, you find yourself being harassed by people not willing to work within the community's pillars, by all means contact me and I'll warn and block as appropriate." Not "report it to the appropriate noticeboard and maybe something will or won't happen." Your ability to lie with a straight face will serve you well on Arbcom; it's almost a prerequisite these days. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
So why haven't you brought it up on ANI for review? NW (Talk) 04:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't you all get it yet? The WP:MMORPG just requires that you win. It doesn't require that you play fair. I learned that a long time ago. If CMLITC blocked the other offenders or even asked for another administrator to block other offenders, it would make the entire situation too discordant as the usual suspects would line-up explaining how we don't normally block for incivility, blah, blah, blah. That would make it glaringly obvious that this block was simply WP:PUNITIVE. No wins in that, are there? So best just not to do anything and let the interminable collection of walls of text drive us to oblivion. Meanwhile, this and this look ominous. jps (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

@CMTIAT: Please read the page I directed you to William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Request reason:

I have made a harmless edit comment which worried no-one; real actual PA's on ANI such as [19] are being ignored; this is clear hypocrisy William M. Connolley (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

See below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

If I unblock you, will you refrain from using naughty words? By all means, fire full broadsides at those who hound or attack you, but don't use gratuitously foul language. Use wit rather than profanity. M'kay? Jehochman Talk 18:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think asking for that promise on all occasions into the indefinite future is unreasonable, and far exceeds the demands put on other users, such as LHVU. So I am obliged to decline your kind offer, but thank you for making it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't have to be perfect. Would you make a good faith effort to reduce such comments by an order of magnitude. What baleful things other editors do is not relevant to you. Do your best, and let the others look like the south end of a northbound horse. Jehochman Talk 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm entirely happy to make good faith efforts and in return I expect to be judged by the same standards as others William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
For example, do you have any problems with B saying "fuck" [20]? Or, indeed, it is acceptable under the terms you propose to call other users "poisonous, nasty, condescending" [21]? Or is it only other users who are allowed to use these terms about me, whilst you expect me to be faultless in return? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word "fuck" in that context is acceptable, because it's not uncivil or a personal attack. To refer to another specific editor as poisonous or nasty would be uncivil and a borderline personal attack, as would your use of the word "twat" in this edit summary. By calling editors names like that, you make it very difficult to want to unblock you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
[Comment revised - WMC] I'll go with endorsing Boris's comment, just below William M. Connolley (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Your language isn't quite clear. "To refer to another specific editor as poisonous or nasty would be uncivil" or "is uncivil"? That's precisely what Beelblebrox did; note e.g., his use of the third person singular pronoun.[22] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I used that wording for a reason. It is uncivil to refer to another editor in those terms, but had I said that, the next question is inevitably "what am I going to do about it". I'm not going to do anything about it because the comment was made almost a week ago and I believe Beeblebrox has since agreed or volunteered not to interact with WMC and finally because this conversation is about WMC's conduct, not Beeblebrox's. To address that, you should discuss it on his talk page or start an RfC/U. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
...so that it can be disregarded following proper protocol. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Cynical, but not inaccurate, sadly. Hopefully Beeblebrox will stick to his pledge to avoid WMC and the issue will be a moot point. WMC, will you just agree to make a reasonable effort to comment on content and not contributors or their motives (which would include making much less frequent use of the word "twat") and I'll unblock you. If you extend that courtesy to others and they fail to do so in kind, then by all means bring it to my attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm entirely happy to agree to that William M. Connolley (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Then we have a deal. I've unblocked you and your autoblock seems to have expired already so you should be fine as long as you stick to the above. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's not have equivocation. As I said, what others do is their own problem. Will you, WMC, promise to make an order of magnitude improvement in your communication? Keep it professional. Aspire not to type anything here you wouldn't say face to face to a complete stranger you'd never met before. Jehochman Talk 02:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"what others do is their own problem": no. This is simple hypocrisy. You're involving yourself in someone else's problem. Blocking someone for incivility is intrinsically mixing up different people's problems. Insisting on an order of magnitude greater civility from me that from the people who attack me, whose attacks you ignore, is unacceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If you insist that I must scrutinize the behavior of every single user on Wikipedia if I scrutinize one is silly. What you do is independent of what others do. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No, that isn't a reasonable comment. You're being asked to compare my behaviour to that of two (and only two) people who have attacked me. I've been blocked for a week for an edit comment on my own talk; they have not even been given a warning for deliberate attacks in a public forum. If you think that is fair and reasonable then: you aren't. But in fact I know that you think it is neither fair nor reasonable, which is why you are struggling so hard to avoid making the comparison William M. Connolley (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

## Exoplanets and the Intermediate General Circulation Model

Steven Vogt talks about a scientist who modeled the atmospheric circulation of a tidally locked exoplanet like Gliese 581 g in its habitable zone.[23] I'm not sure which paper Vogt is referring to here. Would you be able to add a discussion about this to the Gliese 581 g article? No hurry on this. It's in the video if you get a chance to watch it (Event begins sometime around 29:27). Viriditas (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

They have really irritating video... can't they just put it on youtube :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting how I asked you this question right as it became an issue. An editor just added that the tidally locked sides would be "blazing hot in the light side to freezing cold in the dark side", however I removed this because Vogt seems to refer to the climate models several times that contradict this statement. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
And now, I've restored it after finding the source. Viriditas (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I've evaded the issue for the moment but put a comment about something else on the talk page. Thanks. Meanwhile, if you look at the PR puff [http://news.ucsc.edu/2010/09/planet.html - notice in the pic the sun is orange/red, as presumably it should be, but mysteriously the light reflected off the clouds has become white William M. Connolley (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I finally found the guy and his work. His name is James Kasting. Have you heard of him?Viriditas (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope. But I have found and now read Joshi et al. 1997 which looks to be the main source for the atmospheres stuff. Its quite interesting. I'll summarise it here, prior to dumping it somewhere: put it in User:William M. Connolley/Atmospheric general circulation on tidally locked planets <snipped to sub page>

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. But isn't deposition of CO2 exothermic and thus would release heat into the atmosphere on the cold side so it would get warmer? — Coren (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, obviously the GHE would be reduced by the loss and that would overwhelm the small amount of heat gained from deposition. — Coren (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the heat released is small, and is soon lost. Its vaguely similar to the way that waste heat from fossil fuel combustion is far less important than the CO2 released William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Gurk: I've just noticed that Vogt et al. say M stars emit a large amount of their radiation in the infrared. As a result, since the greenhouse effect works by absorbing infrared radiation, the surface temperatures would be higher than predicted by such simple calculations. [24] This is very badly broken. Oops William M. Connolley (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

## Feedback requested

Sorry to hear you are currently blocked, but could I get your professional opinion on this discussion? Thanks in advance. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just looking. At first sight the edits are entirely reasonable. It seems plausible that L is R. T. Pierrehumbert - it is probably worth asking him to confirm that he asserts that (he just about has, but not quite explicitly). In which case I think the COI claims aren't very helpful: it isn't as if he is promoting some pet theory, and he would be a very valuable contributor to have editing wiki so best to be nice to him. Again, at first sight, the major difference between this and previous work appears to be using an ocean rather than a land-only planet; I don't know which is more likely. L suggests on talk that really this stuff isn't about Gleis but is common to all tidally locked planets; I started some wurbling in that direction at User:William M. Connolley/Atmospheric general circulation on tidally locked planets but then got distracted William M. Connolley (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

## Information is hard to erase

[25] Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW as the the person who had the largest number of entries on your deleted page, I have created a page containing the log of page diffs here. I have an impaired memory and it is helpful for me to have these kind of aide memoires. If you wish to extend that list of diff logs to include any other contributions listed by author without disparaging edit summaries or commentary you are entirely free to do so. But you are also free to ignore it or ask me to delete it. For my part of the favour please do and try harder; I can assure you, you have barely scratched the surface of my stupidity. --BozMo talk 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. BozMo, I'm baffled: you've just willfully recreated a deleted page. How do you justify doing that? Since admins have no special rights (other than their tools) it is no more lgal for you to have that page than for me. Which implies that either you have sinned, or that I am free to copy it back into my user space William M. Connolley (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
For what its worth I think context is everything. The arguments about the deletion of the page turned considerably around the PAs in the edit history and inference from how the entries came about. I did not recreate and move the page (or could have followed the convention of returning the page content to its owner) but thoughtfully created a page which preserves some of the content. On top of which for my part of the favour (the diffs on edits of mine) I am interested in whether the community is really going to declare me to be attacking myself. If my list gets deleted my next attempt would be to create a page with "things people say" as a title and include only my own diffs. To be honest it is a sad day for Wikipedia when an opinion on a diff is construed as a PA. The whole point is that you are allowed to dislike an edit, but not dislike the editor. --BozMo talk 12:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah well. If your page survives deletion and/or you aren't bothered by time-wasters for a day or two, then I'll just re-create my page starting from yours William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

## PES

You and your talk page watchers are invited to look at User:Atmoz/photoemission spectroscopy and see if there is anything worth merging into Photoemission spectroscopy. I'll likely get around to it eventually, but the folk that go around nominating userpages for MfDs will likely find if before then. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Already watching it :-). You're more likely to get some use out of one of the watchers than me, though William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please record your work progress at the newly created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Top edits and, if you haven't done so yet, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup#Cleanup lists. The first link lists the most frequently articles edited by Jagged 85 by number of edits, the latter by total number of bytes added by him. As you know, keeping track of the cleanup effort is paramount to avoid double work. Thanks and regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

## Jagged 85 stuff

I missed the whole business with this, seems I was lucky. From what I gather from Tkuvho accusations being hurled toward me, he was abusing references? Anyways I thought you could take a look at Differential (infinitesimal) in its history section, Jagged 85 added some stuff that looks questionable to me and I thought you might know for sure at a glance. Thenub314 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Jagged85 stuff rumbles on; there is no need for you to miss it all (though I'd run screaming if I were you). I'll look at D(i) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, instantly recognisable. I could dig out the long tedious discussion we had over that, if you really want to see it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

|}

## WP:Scientific point of view

I've started to rewrite this, made an essay out of it and changed the argument. I argue that NPOV requires one to stick to SPOV on science articles, so sticking to SPOV on such articles is mandatory. If you have time, you can help expand it and perhaps it can later be proposed as a new policy. Count Iblis (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to assist. Do you have some place we can discuss this? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

## Circumcision

At the moment, i am one of at least 8 editors who have complained about the current state of the circumcision article which was recently changed to sound much more pro-circumcision. There are a group of established editors who look like they are tag-teaming (Jakew, Jayjg, User:Avraham and User:Jmh649) supporting this pro-circumcision stance. Jakew, Avi and Jayjg have been edit-warring on this article with their pro-circumcision stance since at least 2007/2008. Do you have any opinions on this matter? Do you think an RfC or arbitration is appropriate? Thanks for reading. Pass a Method talk 10:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would give up, you might as well persuade Conservapedia to take a balanced view on Global Warming. One editor in particular has owned that article for about six years and is a long term persistent pro-circumcision lobbyist, with occasional support. Even if you manage to get any kind of balance on the article, which would be impressive, you will find it erode into being pro cutting again over time. The resident editors will put far more time and effort into findly sources which support them etc than you will ever manage to, they are expert in Wikilaw too. You will encounter similar problems on other "optional surgery" kind of topics including cosmetic plastic surgery. Try to get a Germaine Greer perspective into Breast implant if you feel like a challenge. If you take it to the wider community the very strong USA bias toward pointless surgical intervention (financial incentive and knowledge converge) means you can never get consensus because there are always a few "looks ok to me" fruitcakes on the boards. Take it off your watchlist and concentrate on parts of Wikipedia where the improvement from effort is higher. (Circumcision is unusual in that generally the pro-surgery bias comes from practitioners with obvious financial incentives; with circumcisions the motivation of the resident team is less financial). --BozMo talk 15:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The lobby seems to advocate a bit more agressive pro-circumcision wording over the past month. Probably has something to do with the California vote to ban circumcision this year. Pass a Method talk 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Just pretend to yourself it is not part of Wikipedia but is a highly selection pro Circumcision lobby page. Then you won't lose sleep. --BozMo talk 05:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
BozMo Sounds like you're proposing cutting that page off from the rest of the encyclopedia! Sorry (couldn't help myself) FrankP (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

## Query

Not meaning to offend, but... are you nuts? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I, naturally, agree with SBHB. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I was meaning to say: Boris, thanks for your comment. But do please amplify it, as to the substance. Nathan you too. As for madness: at least I don't run in your state :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you enjoy dressing up in antlers and going for a walk in the woods during deer hunting season? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
We don't do that stuff in the Fens. Otter hunting, perhaps. Or mink? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

## Barnstar of diligence

 The Barnstar of Diligence You are awarded this Barnstar for diligent protection of the rules of Wikipedia. Gantuya eng (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

## Clarifications

I'm sorry if I'm unclear--I'm not referring to arbitration cases but instances--but at this point it's all semantics. You aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions, and so I don't support letting you off the leash you forged. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, won't do. You said "confirmation by WMC of the validity of all the complaints from previous cases". "cases" clearly means arbitration cases - it can't mean anything else. If you now wish to switch your wording to "instances" then you'll have to say what you mean by that. I've asked you which "cases" you mean, and I think you've evaded the issue. It looks to me like you simply made an error, but you're not prepared to correct yourself - hardly an inspiring example, indeed rather ironic, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
(ps: for anyone else wondering, the other half of this conversation is [26]. Perhaps I need to bold the "if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there" in my edit notice William M. Connolley (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
You aren't willing to accept responsibility for your actions - you are an impatient sort. I haven't answered you yet - I'm still trying to work out what you're talking about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The actual diffs showing alleged problematic behavior by William are mostly similar to this incident today. ArbCom was in denial about the underlying problem, they totally ignored the fact that the probation system that was implemented before the ArbCom case started was a total failure (indeed, if it had worked, there wouldn't have been an ArbCom case).

ArbCom managed to devote a whole paragraph on the most irrelevant incident you can think of, William inserting comments on postings on his talk page, see here. None of the other issues gets so much coverage. Since it was eventually decided that William was allowed to do this, this was a non-issue anyway, but it is of course a totally irrelevant issue as far as editing in the CC area is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought William was crazy for wanting to be unbanned, and told him so. In the unlikely event his appeal is granted he'll have flocks of admins, partisans, and partisan admins circling to look for the tiniest misstep. (Cooler heads than mine agree on at least this point.) Someone will haul him before AE for not saying "please" is an edit summary or similar nonsense and he'll get blocked, which will justify Arbcom's locking him back up and throwing away the key. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
But to the point: do either of you know what DWF actually means by his talk of cases? Or, perhaps, what exactly is his confusion? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's do some mindreading. He wasn't an Arbitrator during the original case. Then let's look again at the final decision and see what someone who spends 20 seconds to read the findings about you would note. He would note the headlines, the links, because they have a blue color standing out from the main text, and phrases indicating bad behavior. The first headline is "William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped", the links refer to previous cases and the ominous words in the text that he would have noted in relation to these cases are "misused admin tools", "admonished", "restricted".
The headline of the next section is "William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic", the text of the section doesn't contain much notable facts (the links are all numbers). So that section would make a lesser impact. And the last section about BLP edits probably won't make much of an impact at all. The headline "William M. Connolley's edits to biographies of living persons" isn't a negative statement, the text doesn't contain any links at all, and no alarming words like "disruptive" etc., phrases like "not..... appropriately neutral", don't sound very alarming.
Clearly, of all these things that one would note in 20 seconds, the first section about previous cases stands out. Count Iblis (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
[Drivel stripped- W]
William won't be allowed to edit BLP pages, so he'll be kept away from anything that is controversial about the CC area here on Wikipedia. The Wiki policies are a good enough barrier to keep the real world public controversy about the science of global warming out of the science articles, in case of the BLP articles this is not the case. Count Iblis (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally optimistic, and Boris generally pessimistic, and up to now he has won hands down. But we'll see William M. Connolley (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

## Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 09:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add `{{NoACEMM}}` to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)