Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:02, 23 December 2009

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 for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it.

You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email.

I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once.

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

My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log • Count watchers • Edit count • WikiBlame

The Holding Pen

Ocean acidification

A reader writes:

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

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

Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Double diffusive convection

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

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

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

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

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

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

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at [[2]] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current

Your ArbCom userpage comment

Need to finish this off

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

I know that you were disappointed by the conduct and results of the case, and I'm sure you're aware that I voted against most of the remedies proposed against you and share some portion of your feelings. However, I respectfully suggest that calling one of my colleagues a "fool" on-wiki is not helpful. We all accept a great deal of criticism and commentary as par for the course in connection with serving as arbitrators—just as you have as one of our active administrators on contentious topics—but I always still think it's better, and more effective, to stay away from the overtly ad hominem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you've found it :-). And while you are here, thank you for your votes. I am indeed deeply disappointed by the conduct of your colleagues; and I regret having to disappoint you now. Arbcomm are big boys and girls and can cope with some discrete criticism of their actions. Moreover, you (arbcomm, I can't recall how you personally voted) established the principle that users are entitled to insult a blocking admin as much as they please on their own talk pages; I'm sure you'll extend a similar privilidge to those who desysop people William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that there is a diff there justifying the appelation. I regard the extensive comment re the cabal as being grotesquely stupid. However this carries no implication that is the most foolish thing that particular arb has done in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is entitled to insult anyone here William. If arbcom has passed some sort of rule the "entitles" users to insult a blocking admin(and I seriously doubt they have) then I would use good sense and ignore such an "entitlement" as unproductive. Chillum 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Are you certain of your ground here? Suppose someone were to call the arbcomm "liars" or "lying bastards" or "ridiculous" or "devious" or compare them to a third world Junta? Do you think that would be actionable? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be rather poor judgment. Just because something is not actionable does not make it an entitlement. Chillum 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the arbcomm's decision permitting this, I entirely agree with you. However, until they are wise enough to revoke it (and alas I fear we will have rather a long time to wait for wisdom from them) we are stuck with it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked to see which arb was accused of being a "fool," but am curious how would "Stephen Bain should not be entrusted with anything more valuable than a ball of string" would be received. I'd like to know before I say that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Ditto

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

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above.

As a result of this case:

The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Wikipedia, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct.
William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William M. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages.
Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks.
The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm am sorry to see that your adminship has been revoked. I believe that our circumstances are similar in a way. I too was once an admin and lost my tools mainly due to conflicts on articles related to the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I know that the vast majority of my content creation and all my FA's were done after I was desysopped...with that said I am hoping that we can still look forward to your wisdom and guidance in those areas you have so instrumental in and that you will continue to help us build as reliable a reference base as we can achieve. Best wishes to you!--MONGO 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great day for Arbcom or the project. However I doubt you will take it too personally. --BozMo talk 08:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you please accept my nomination to regain your administrative rights at RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vair tempting. I fear that was the wrong forum. I shall ponder this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear this, William. You were a good admin. I hope you won't let it bother you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely comment in RFA, nor do I monitor them. If you ever decide to be re-nominated, I would appreciate a courtesy notice as otherwise I will almost certainly not be aware of the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting

[3] Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

Weird. Who is it supposed to be a courtesy too? I've asked C User_talk:Carcharoth#CB. Certainly it seems to me that the people most embarassed by that page would be arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woonpton expressed a desire for blanking, both during the case and at WT:AC/N. As I understand it, she feels that having Abd's allegations about cabal-ism visible were and are slandering her and everyone else smeared by the accusations. EdChem (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to look at User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Thanks_and_question for more on Woonpton's view, as well as the thread immediately above it. EdChem (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This giant spwaling ill-managed case now extends to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Courtesy_blanking_of_case_pages. Sigh - I thought they had finally managed to finish this case, but not, they drag its stinking corpse out of the grave and prop it up again William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which section is best to post this, but I would be delighted to renominate you at RFA or support you if you decide to run. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fools and their foolishness

Yes, it needs finishing

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

Regarding [4], you are quite welcome to raise any of your concerns or points on my talk page. I'm quite open to constructive feedback, even if it's harsh or drastically opposed to my views or actions. I even promise not to seek a block if you call me a fool. However, if you call me Mungojerrie or make me listen to "Memory", it's war! :-) (If you prefer to keep everything together, we could easily have the same discussion at User talk:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff.) Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll decline your permission to call you a fool on your page, though, since I think that would be wrong. The "Misc" page needs some more work when I hve a spare moment William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am mostly interested in what you find most troublesome about my statement and what harm you think it would bring if taken to heart. It is entirely possible that there is a misunderstanding or that I simply communicated ineffectively. Even if it is the simple fact that our opinions are on opposite poles, it would be valuable for me to better understand your concerns. I'll keep an eye on the subpage and remain available for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought some of your decisions were described as foolishness. This is not in my view the same as calling you a fool. Everyone makes foolish decisions and sometimes takes foolish actions. Criticising an action as foolish IMHO is not a personal attack whereas calling the actor a fool is. As for the troublesome statement the problem I have with it is "Fernseeds and elephants" (roughly that you are staring out of the window discerning a fern seed in the distance when there is an elephant in the room, to paraphrase CS Lewis) you say "there is certainly a kernel of truth to the concerns in that there is a certain indentifiable group that appears to act in a mutually supporting fashion" completely misses the bigger problem which drives people with nothing more in common than a basic understanding of science to "appear to act in concert". On most ordinary differentiators (religion, politics, hair length, social class?) I am opposites to WMC (we do both have kids I think) but he has a scientific training of sorts and D Phil in maths from the one of the better universities in the UK and a background in scientific modelling, and I have good scientific training, a PhD from the better place and a background in scientific modelling and that means when faced with utter rubbish (someone who thinks that Global Warming violates the second law of thermodynamics) we tend to agree. So perhaps it is a concern to you that there is an appearance of a Cabal but there is also a concern in the appearance of idiocy on some of the groups who attack. You say "commonly overwhelmed by involved opinion and regularly featured involved editors !voting and/or commenting as though they were uninvolved users providing an opinion" but when I look I see five or six identifiable anti WMC anti science editors who never miss an opportunity to express a view and perhaps fifty scientifically trained editors who each take a turn for a few months patiently explaining to these people and then move back to the middle of the penguin huddle. A lot of the antogonists I am sure are 14 year olds who don't understand the limits of their knowledge. Some are confident readers of trashy news papers or have strong political motivation. The idea though that this is an issue about the editors who protect WP as is as silly as saying that wikiproject medicine is a "troubling conspiracy" of wikipedians who are medically qualified trying to keep wikipedia in line with established medical practice. --BozMo talk 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your response, I'm going to venture that a failure on my part to communicate more clearly is a principal culprit. Let me try restating my point:

There's no evil Cabal. There is a group of like-minded editors that support each other. This is usually beneficial to Wikipedia. The main harmful activity I see is involved* editors overwhelming content and conduct discussions on noticeboards, especially when involved* editors present their opinions as though they were uninvolved parties and/or generate the false appearance of outside consensus. (*"Involved" defined simply as actually previously or currently involved in content disputes within the topic area that are directly relevant to the discussion or substantial conflict with the main involved parties.) A complete rejection of all concerns about "clique editing" is inappropriate in the face of this very real problem.

I will certainly agree that this is at least as much of a problem with pseudoscience/fringe editors as with skeptical/scientific editors. Indeed, I say it is more of a problem with the former than the latter, if for no other reason than fringe editors' preferred versions are usually inaccurate presentations with far worse NPOV violations and gaming the content noticeboards allows them set policy precedents grossly at odds with the principles invoked.

I hope this better clarifies what I was trying to express (obviously with limited success and much misunderstanding). If I can further clarify, or if you or anyone else wishes to discuss it further, I remain available to do so. Vassyana (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bozmo. I've cut my hair recently so we may not be too far opposed on that aspect (unless you now have long hair). As to expanding the page - that will come in time. I'm glad you (V) are watching but I'm afraid I've grown rather discouraged by arbcomms ability to learn, so I won't be in a hurry. That page is mostly for me, though you are free to ask questions there if you like and I'll probbaly answer. In the meantime, on the "fools" issue, User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/On_civility#Misc_arbcomm-y_stuff refers William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone does at least two foolish things a day, but only some of us can do six impossible things before breakfast. Verbal chat 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second BozMo. A clear description of the situation. My hair is short, my Dr. rer. nat. is from one of the better German universities, and I represent the "no kids" demography. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this

Oh look: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/web-iquette-for-climate-discussions/ Isn't that good? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He used web-iquette for medical discussions as a guide. That reminds me of How Doctors Think which is a great work on how brilliant, well trained, experienced people can get things wrong every day. I wonder if there is a way to do the same thing. Ignignot (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pole shift analysis Mediation request

I have offered my services as a mediator for the Pole shift analysis mediation request. As you have probably seen, discussion is currently undergoing at the talk page and your input would be appreciated before we go any further. Regards -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wondring aloud

I have to wonder if there isn't some deliberate foot dragging, given sentiments previously expressed by Arbcom and other insiders. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. I missed the Raul stuff in August and now feel guilty about not expressing my sympathy (literally in this case :-(). Old score settling I suspect William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Raul stuff in Aug? Email if you prefer. --BozMo talk 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Raul654 -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail

Please check your e-mail. :-) -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that was pretty subtle of you. Has no-one told you this is supposed to be a *sekret* cabal? I'll send you the decoder ring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally - for anyone else - I read my email as obsessively as I edit wiki, so there is no need to tell me William M. Connolley (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have a free section - let me point all to Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#RFC.3F which has got rather buried under the dross. I can't see any way of avoiding this - it is clear the edit war will erupt as soon as the protection is removed. Unless we aim for user RFC's on some of the more pointless and disruptive folk. Thoughts? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric soot (of more than one kind :-)

I've got enough to get into without getting into this (I see "the emails!!!" as bs), but will comment...

Based on vast knowledge of scattered info-fragments pooled in brain from leaving cableTV playing in background ... I'd say there's some cooling arising from "atmospheric soot" ... and we could just encourage China to burn more and dirtier coal ... to "solve" global warming problem ... but that "solution" is problematic. ;-) Yet cooling from atmospheric particulates (including incompletely gaseous male cow farts) may appear (e.g, to bs consumers) to complicate the evidence of warming. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this is the Superfreakonomics heresey William M. Connolley (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Discovery channel was wrong!!! (lol) Anyway ... I see you got your bit back. I'd like your flag. Do you have a Steward friend who'd make me an admin for ten seconds (the length of some blocks I've seen lately :) ... then I can fly that flag. So cool. (Um, not globally, just cool) ... Silly mood at 6 AM and not slept yet ... Don't forget about that 10-second admin thing. In any case, best of luck in the election (won't tell you how I voted, but, did I mention I liked your flag? lol) Happy holidays. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS On a more serious note, since the issue of particulates from burning coal still rang rather true in my neural net ... I needed to find this on brown cloud particulates in Asia ... which warm the air, but still cool the ground. lol Still pondering that .. but wouldn't have found that article without this light holiday exchange. Thanks. Proofreader77 (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madiera m'dear (or Dundee Cake)

Ref BLP and the thread I contributed to a few weeks ago and lost. No not L. It was stuff like [5]. I think this crosses the line into giving credence to claims of victimisation and people could draw their own conclusions without it. But it has been edit-warred loads of times, even though it should have been conceded. You I think reverted in on a sock basis so I should probably argue it with Kim but he'll find it here too. --BozMo talk 20:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that one? I thought it was the smoking stuff. That one I would argue is accurate. Then there is the fine line of "should it be included?", which I agree that reasonable people (as well as a fair number of unreasonable people) could disagree about William M. Connolley (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the only one but the individual was the reference to food. Unfortunately he always reminds me of a colleague in Francophone Africa who menioned his mother was a Sewer, pronounced the wrong way. Anyway on this one I do not doubt that these fine people said such a thing in the editorial part of their website, so I agree it is accurate as their opinion, and they may well be sufficiently expert (you would know). But in my view it almost becomes the opposite of damning with faint praise (exonerating with weak criticism) if we trawl around for this sort of thing when there are much heavier criticisms than condemnation on a blog. I am happy to disagree with you about it (I agree it is fine judgement) and I really don't want to get into BLP. But directionally when I do I am going to argue for reducing borderline criticism on asthetic as much as policy grounds. --BozMo talk 21:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand me. When I said "accurate" I meant, what they said is a good descripton of reality William M. Connolley (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in a position to disagree with you, certainly. But as you say that's not grounds for inclusion under house rules. --BozMo talk 22:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Svensmark

Just a heads up that I brought this up on the NPOV Notice Board - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Henrik_Svensmark_-_Self_referencing.2C_undue_weight.2C_Editor.27s_own_blog_as_a_RS.3F

While not really a believer in Svensmark's theories, the format of the article is odd to say the least, and gives undue weight to Gavin et al, who is already referenced in a peer reviewed format in the article. Nothing personal Arnold.A.D. (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up too often, I should write it down somewhere. [6] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~err, but you know that already, because of the post you linked to. Is this good faith? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

William, any way you could get the RC guys to update this page: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/william-m-connolley/ - it was posted in good faith, I did not see the goodbye text in my cross referencing, and will adjust my POV statements accordingly. Regards, Arnold.A.D. (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I spoke too quickly. That post was intended to have been updated to say goodbye, but doesn't do so clearly William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Internet... it happens :) Best Regards, Arnold.A.D. (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British libel laws...

...much as I despise them, [7] might be a decent application for them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't bother. Better not to dignify him with the attention and walk away. --BozMo talk 18:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not passing jusgement on this either way. I just wanted to draw it to your attention.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are now many angry e-mails arriving at info@wikimedia.org, presumably from readers of that column. Here's how I'm answering some of them (reproducing this here because it may help other OTRS volunteers):

Thank you for contacting us with your concern.
Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia (as explained at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction>), and so anyone may edit its articles. Its policy, nonetheless, is that articles must be written from a Neutral Point of View, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias, as is discussed extensively at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV>.
However, all matters relating to article content and project administration are not controlled by a central authority, but are decided through discussion and consensus of all collaborators. The nonprofit Wikipedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, does not intervene in the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia, does not make decisions about the content of articles or about administrative actions, and normally takes no stance in disputes about Wikipedia content or administration.
There are several tens of thousands of contributors and more than a thousand administrators on the English Wikipedia alone, which normally ensures that no single editor or administrator can exert a commanding influence over the project or any particular aspect of it. There are also often disputes about content or administrative policy, but Wikipedia has solid procedures to resolve disputes and to make sure that every contested action, including the deletion of articles or the blocking of contributors, is subject to review in a community discussion or by an independent Arbitration Committee (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee>).
I hope that this addresses your concern.

It might be helpful if you wrote some statement onwiki to which these people could be directed to hear your side of the story. Sandstein 21:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help if you included text in your reply that the independent Arbitration Committee has recently removed the administrative rights of William M. Connolley as he "misused his administrator tools by acting while involved" as evidence of the mentioned solid procedures in place to review contested actions. Uncle uncle uncle 02:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be brave... if anyone external actually looks and finds the way it was done that could be rather embarrassing for Arbcom? --BozMo talk 08:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh thanks. I didn't know anyone cared. I guess I'd better read the thing before mocking it. I notice he complains about my 500 deletions. [8] says he is correct but [9] says most of them are b*gg*r all to do with wiki. More later William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to engage Solomon would constitute a Rule 5 violation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, the answer is http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php (I don't see why I shouldn't get some blog traffic out of this :-). If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. I'll put the conclusion here for convenience: "Conclusion: a rather dull article by Beany. Nothing new, and he hasn't done his homework properly." William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make sure I have this straight: your deletion of Hilery clintin was not done at the behest of the pro-AGW orthodoxy at RealClimate? MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the many evil acts which made arbcomm stomp on me. You see, crime never pays William M. Connolley (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I'm absolutely gobsmacked William. The EEML is small beer compared with your realclimate.org team. --Martin (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we took care never to leak our extensive off-wiki collaboration William M. Connolley (talk) 12:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it is so. --Martin (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

t:GW

I replied on my page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm result

I should comment, although there is little to say: Wikipedia:ACE2009 says it all. My claim to fame is having the lowest "neutral" count of the list. But also the lowest % of all the non-wacko candidates :-(. But my thanks to all who supported me William M. Connolley (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, yes, I voted for you — despite your complete lack of nuance with respect to atmospheric soot. :-) (I am smiling, but it is still an interesting idea that the "brown cloud" of Asia, both increases global warming, while cooling the ground). (Not a joke. See the nsf.gov article.) Now, I've spent zero time thinking about this ... but my rhetorical matrix probability calculations says there is something in that fact which has not been fully explored — at least from the perspective of countering the email bullshit shouting. lol Anyway, Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely odd. Aerosol usually contributes cooling. I'm not sure why this bit makes for warming William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, you're not paying attention. It's the brown particulates (see: "Brown Cloud") ... that absorb heat, increasing atmospheric warming ... while also cutting off light to the ground, making it cooler.

P.S., I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that I've acknowledged on my user talk to having voted for both Jehochman and William M. Connolley. (I feel comfortable amidst the disreputable. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, instead of viewing the result as "the lowest of the non wacko candidates" you could view it as "the highest of the wacko candidates". ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#add IPCC context and mission per talk?

Thank you for starting that section after reverting. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your misleading summary of an edit to Hockey stick controversy

You gave a misleading summary of an edit to Hockey stick controversy. I reverted your change. I will revert further changes that have misleading summaries.

Also, the quote that I added was to replace misleading text. If you want to delete the quote, you should replace it with something that is not misleading. It looks to me like you are trying to bias the article. I suggest that you read WP:NPOV.

AlfBit (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary was accurate. I've read WP:NPOV William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Warm Period

I've read reports on the 'net of you 'cyber-bullying' people on this article and getting de-admin'd for it. I hope there's more to the story than what I've read, but frankly, I didn't like your flippant and cavalier revert of me there the other day and I am fully prepared to seek having you barred from that article if you revert me on an ongoing basis there without talk page dialog. This is your one fair warning - please don't blow it. Instead, please dialog with me on the article talk page if you don't like my edits. Thanks. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're hopelessly wrong. If you're interested in reality, come back to talk here and we can go through sentence-by-sentence William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You want: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745 William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or this: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

I'm unsure of the appropriate forum to address this, and my opinion is unfortunately mixed at this point. - Roy Boy 23:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le gasp. WMC, how did you take control of all these 5k articles?! Amazing... OlYeller^Talktome 23:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has his group of trusty minions, of course. I watch over Leviathan (book) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. I think Boris is entrusted with Talk:Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI:William_M._Connolley_and_Global_Warming has been started, please place serious discussion there. - Roy Boy 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic... ~~There's a difference between COI and having a different opinion that you (I think WMC falls in the latter).~~ OlYeller^Talktome 00:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was forced to add "serious". I nearly replied outlining how it can be done, thanks to Wiki innovations. - Roy Boy 01:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

I thought you might have an interest in the new policy being considered. I just came across this now and thought maybe sharing it with others would get the word out. If not interested, igrore please. Hope you are well, happy holidays, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a really bad idea to me William M. Connolley (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi

Would you consider a short-term semi-protection "Billy"?! Just a thought... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I already applied without asking. --TS 16:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How rude... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done For a short period. Should make the vandal quit. Malinaccier (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Made him move to my talkpage! Don't worry about prot though.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think a short prot is needed. [10] and [11] are drawing a number of people who are not used to our ways William M. Connolley (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'll give it another few mins then do it myself. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page now semi-prot for 7 days. Let me know if i can help further. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help (you realise you're part of the cabal now, of course?) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was born that way... It's always just been a matter of time. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest allegations

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:William_M._Connolley_and_Global_Warming. User:RoyBoy thinks it's better to take this seriously and investigate than to just blow it off. I think I see his point. --TS 00:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've responded there William M. Connolley (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, I'm a big fan of "mocking." :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 11:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 261: / Line 261: @@
 :: Definitely odd. Aerosol usually contributes cooling. I'm not sure why this bit makes for warming [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 16:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 :::Lol, you're not paying attention. It's the brown particulates (see: [http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=109712 "Brown Cloud"]) ... that absorb heat, increasing atmospheric warming ... while also cutting off light to the ground, making it cooler. <p>P.S., I'm sure you'll be delighted to know that I've acknowledged on my user talk to having voted for both Jehochman and William M. Connolley. (I feel comfortable amidst the disreputable. ;-) [[User:Proofreader77|Proofreader77]] ([[User talk:Proofreader77|talk]]) 03:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
+If it makes you feel any better, instead of viewing the result as "the lowest of the non wacko candidates" you could view it as "the highest of the wacko candidates". ++[[User:Lar|Lar]]: [[User_talk:Lar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Lar|c]] 14:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 == [[Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change#add IPCC context and mission per talk?]] ==