Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:44, 20 August 2010

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.

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats

Googlebombing: Coton school UK

Proverb: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it.
Thought for the day: paulgraham.com/discover
There's no light the foolish can see better by [1]

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

I'm Number 11

The Holding Pen

Ocean acidification

On hold

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 [2] 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]

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]

Current

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]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are the Walrus and you talk about throbbing bodies? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is for exploding underpants, but they banned them :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can cope with maths. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more like those rude transparent underpants then? [5] HistorianofScience (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also, this [6] and the linked [7] also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time. HistorianofScience (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm yes. "Prediction is hard, especially of the future" as they say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. So they say. I'm really good at the past prediction part though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More thermals

All at Idealized greenhouse model it seems

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[edit] 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)[reply]

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
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
                ----------------------------
                       
                     |    |
                     |    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
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
                ----------------------------
                       
                     |    |
                     |    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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some help with links would be appreciated

I see that you're (still) neck deep in "The Dramaz!", but when you get a chance I'd appreciate it if yourself or someone you know could take a look at Eric Rignot and try to straighten out the climatology related redlinks there. Don't worry about the link to Lew Allen Director's Award, I'll take care of that myself eventually (unless someone else wants to write a little article about the award. Don't let me stop you!). Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. By golly, but that is an awful photo! William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done a bit, others have too. You might want to pay attention to the regrettable possibility of it being a copyvio, mind William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assist, I appreciate it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Code fragments found

Just thouht you might be interested in this news item about code fragments being found. It came to my attention as it was next to this story which has a pretty decent subheading. I don't have access to more than the abstract, doubtless this will lead to interesting discussions. Perhaps a bit offtopic at the moment, but something to look forward to. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the water vapor, email me and you will get a PDF. (Re: Roman law - very cool.) Awickert (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere - odd, the version I heard was stratospheric *drying*. Yes, pdf please William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From my limited understanding, the point is increase = warmer climate, subsequent drying = recent lack of warming predicted by some models, outcome possible solution to puzzle and improved modelling. All very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all: my subscription doesn't work until it appears in print (e.g., until it stops being a "Science Express" article). Shoot. Sorry. You'll all get it once I can access it. I will send emails to friends at other institutions and see if they can get it though. Awickert (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have this page watchlisted anymore. I am willing to provide copies for papers behind paywalls within reason. -Atmoz (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 48 hours

I [pap redacted - WMC] have enacted a 48 hour block on your account [pap redacted - WMC] LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of interest in the actual content of the wiki is duly noted; as I said above: you've chosen the worthless, the yahoos, the septics and the fools above those who actually have a clue William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've removed the goo and dribble from the above, leaving only the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple:Wikipedia

I want to make sure that you are aware of this edit to Black Body. I had never heard of Simple:Wikipedia before, but apparently, I can now create a page there with the same name as a page here and they will be automatically linked. I don't know how to get that bot banned, so I am telling you. If you think that this is no big deal, please say so. (And yes, I know you have an account there. As of today so do I. Do you want **baby or should I take it:) Q Science (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block, and extension to warning regarding inappopropriate words and phrases

Per the preceding section, you have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your 1RR restriction on Climate Change related articles.
You are also further notified that you shall not use demeaning or derogatory terms or phrases, broadly construed, when interacting with or discussing other contributors in respect of the General sanctions/Climate change probation area of articles (that is, not specifically on the article talkpages and probation pages but anywhere within the project). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief you're a biased bozo William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Although I usually disagree with you, I just wanted to say thanks for all your contributions to the various global warming related articles. And also for occasionally making me smile. Thepm (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, that is very kind, both for the thought and the manner of giving William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Compliments

I don't often see myself agreeing with /these, so when I do, I thought I'd take the opportunity to compliment you. Fell Gleaming^(talk) 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Careful. That is pretty clear evidence of a Cabal, or possibly a Cadre William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cadre, I think. In our obligatory red shirts. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For many years of defending Wikipedia from the forces of the abyss. Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were here when I joined Wikipedia, and you've been much more constant than I have. I've learned a great deal from you, and while we have not always agreed on who is evil and who is just different, I have always respected the passion with which you have fought what we both regard as monsters from the abyss. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It could not have come at a happier time William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and William, take heed, take heed, battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of page reban

Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of the recent complaint about your edits:

William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) ...is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer, or the associated talk page, talk:Fred Singer, for a period of three months.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC) [8][reply]

Sounds like the kind of malice and stupidity I expect from you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wp:tea

wp:tea 99.102.176.21 (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That took a while for me to work out what it was for. I'll look at CCD tomorrow. It is, oddly enough, controversial William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CC enforcement

Hi WMC, I am just about to enact a sanction against you regarding the latest RFE. I see now that you have joined the discussion as to whether I am "involved" in the topic area. Please be aware that should I be the drafting admin, it is not a retaliatory action. I was ready to act last night when my internet connection went down and I believe the admin consensus is clear enough. Since I refute the notion that I am in any way involved in the topic area, I am not going to hold back on enacting a sanction against you, likely within the hour - unless someone comes up with a smoking gun that proves I am grinding axes and goring oxen (insert your metaphor here). Regards! Franamax (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your readiness to act when there are credible claims that you are involved is disreputable. Mind you the entire thing is in disrepute, as Lar is clearly involved and has heavily skewed the result. Your assertion that you are not involved is meaningless, since you're happy to reject such assertions from other admins William M. Connolley (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen anything to make the "claims" "credible" and I've seen no outside opinion that my edits to Antarctica make me involved. Remember, I raised the subject when the sanctions regime was being crafted. It rather seems a game to me, if an admin is leaning one way, attack their independence to neutralize them - and if so, I am not going to play that game. You have the usual recourse, start a RFC/U or go to one of the admin noticeboards, AN or AN/I. Franamax (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're judging yourself, and finding yourself innocent. How unusual. Do I get to judge myself too? The discussion on your involved-ness or not is ongoing. You have questions to answer on why you consider PG involved taht you haven't answered William M. Connolley (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JEH's bit

None of this ever happened

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

WMC, I think I am fully uninvolved. Nobody has ever said otherwise. As of this moment, please consider yourself topic banned from anything related to CC (except the arbitration pages). This is in effect until such time as ArbCom posts its decision. You are welcome to edit any other pages on Wikipedia. I am ready to apply a similar restriction to any other CC melee participants who are brought to my attention. Jehochman ^Talk 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ruling. But if i was WMC, i wouldn't contest it - it will do some good, by showing that your (WMC) presence has very little influence on whether there is conflict or not - despite other people's assertion to the contrary. Despite the rather strong character of the ruling, think Jehochman is actually doing you a favor :) Lets get the ArbCom case out of the way.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC) [Nb. i don't agree with J's rationale given on GS/CC/RE though, now that i read it, but only the perceived benefits of it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)][reply]

KDP: It will illustrate that the problem is far bigger than one editor - which I've said all along. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JEH: you're in no position to make any such ruling, and I reject it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go do as you like, as long as you are prepared to own the consequences. I recommend that you sign up for the voluntary restriction, but you are under no obligation to do so. I would lift the sanction, but to avoid trouble, I think that should be put up for discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 22:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your mind [9]. But are you really suggesting that banning edits to tropical climate makes any kind of sense? It amkes none to me. Your action is not helpful nor well thought out William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lar had objected to me unilaterally lifting the sanction. Rather than make a mess, I realize it is best to wait for a little discussion. I already posted your appeal for discussion. We expect an ArbCom decision shortly. This restriction is meant to last no more than two weeks, and probably much less. Jehochman ^Talk 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction, as I have said, is invalid; and I have rejected it. You initially accepted that; that you were swayed by Lar to reverse your view speaks badly of you but all to predictably of Lar William M. Connolley (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has become unnecessarily convoluted. As I noted above, JEH first "lifted" the sanction, then didn't, but now [10] has re-"lifted" it, but without troubling to tell me. But I note his decision to restore the status quo ante which means that the sanction never existed, as I said. I think this is a good resolution William M. Connolley (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Of interest? Tim Kasser Human Identity: A Missing Link in Environmental Campaigning

Of interest? Tom Crompton & Tim Kasser Human Identity: A Missing Link in Environmental Campaigning 99.155.145.126 (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sanction

Per the outcome of a recent enforcement request against you, I hereby notify you that you are prohibited from editing comments made by other editors [except of course in places where I'm allowed to; hopefully TW will get round to clarifying this at some point - WMC] for a duration of two months. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, you don't get any better, do you? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's one way of finding out. Just when more interesting things are happening like leading statisticians [who appear to have qualified as long ago as 2010] finding a new excitingly sloped hockey stick. So much to understand and resolve, without getting distracted by trivia. In my view. Note: in full compliance with agreed withdrawal from areas of debate, I'll say no more. . . dave souza, talk 12:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity is always good, Did you ever read White Queen? If not you should. Meanwhile, you can't just talking about new HS's and run away: go on (by email if you want to be good) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave is talking about the not-yet-published A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? by Blakeley B. McShane (Northwestern) and Abraham J. Wyner (UPenn) that is to be published in Annals of Applied Statistics. One of your fellow bloggers commented about it[11], and I'm sure it's all over the blogosphere by now. NW (Talk) 12:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm just catching up on my RSS feeds - I've found Deltoid now, though I notice he isn't committing himself :-). I too have not yet been told what to think William M. Connolley (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there was some excited comment here about this new work [which appears to be pre-peer review] and indeed one of your fellow bloggers seems to have been telling us what to think. Dunno, myself. . . dave souza, talk 15:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still haven't read it, but there is a probably-perceptive comment in the Deltoid thread [12] William M. Connolley (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an accident that Wharton is also J. Scott Armstrong's school? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 48 hours, for deliberate violation of your editing restriction.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

I draw your attention to the following part of the CC general sanctions (emphasis mine): "Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the climate change pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. The restriction was valid and had consensus, and you willfully violated it. My post to your talkpage was not a personal attack or BLP violation where you might be able to claim an exemption. You were free to remove my comment or archive it, per user talk page guidelines, but not to modify it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you blocked for this edit? NW (Talk) 17:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If so the block looks dodgy. The edit was in square brackets and signed WMC so I don't think it would count as modifying a talk page comment, it was a "margin notation". On the other hand as previously whilst the block is technically wrong perhaps setting careful little traps like this for admins to fall in to is something we should discourage and being wrongfully penalised sometimes is part of the price of being too clever clever. --BozMo talk 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the restriction doesn't apply to WMC's own talk page? As written, it would even prevent him from archiving the page. I think some latitude needs to be shown. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed by policy to archive or blank their own talkpage. The sanction wasn't intended to prevent that. What he did was deliberately violate the sanction, then thumb his nose at it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His comment on my own talkpage clearly implied that he was doing it deliberately. There is no reason WMC needed to insert his comment into my own; he could have easily just replied to my statement asking for clarification. There was no possible exemption from the sanction, like BLP or NPA removal. He didn't blank my comment, he edited it. then he posted on my talkpage to gloat and draw more attention to it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re his comment, are you referring to User talk:The Wordsmith#Please clarify? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the "there is no reason WMC needed to insert his comment into my own..." then no. I mean the section immediately above where I notified him of his sanction, and he edited my notice to insert a comment of his own into mine. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, I have to say that does look a bit pointy to me. Was it worth blocking over, though? Personally I wouldn't have blocked for that since it was obviously an attempt to get a rise out of you, but I can't say that I'm surprised at the block in the circumstances. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of users have demonstrated that if we give an inch, they'll take a mile. Stopping this in its tracks was, I believe, necessary to prevent further "boundary" tests and disruption. He wanted to see how far I could be pushed before I enforced the consensus, and the answer he received was "not very far." The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suboptimal behavior by all concerned, IMO. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'd call a "respect mah authoritah" block. I don't like those. Considering the amount of disapproval evinced on this page (plus my disapproval on IRC), I think The Wordsmith should have placed the block on ANI for review. I'll do it now. Bishonen | talk 22:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC). (If and when Amsterdam lets ANI posts through.)[reply]

You have to look for the coffeeshops that advertise free Wi-Fi. :P MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a facially [I assume you mean farcically? - WMC][cute, but I do mean "facially" as in apparent on its surface with respect to WP:INVOLVED, without any deeper analysis necessary - Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)] invalid block by an involved administrator who is seemingly pissy not about the sanction being violated, but their role as messenger being questioned. The behavior in question has nothing to do except at the most superficial level with the sanction supposedly violated. The unblock should note that the block is void. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of commentary is not helpful. WMC, will you confirm that you'll observe the sanction (even if you think it is bogus)? Jehochman ^Talk 12:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This 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).

William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Pointless and invalid block

Decline reason:

~~This is an ArbCom enforcement block which can only be overturned by a consensus of uninvolved editors.~~ There is a discussion on WP:ANI, however there is clearly no such consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Why is the block pointless and invalid? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless because it doesn't address any problem regarding the editing of Wikipedia articles, and invalid because including comments in edits the way WMC did, is not a violation of any restrictions WMC is under. We're then left with WMC having made clear his displeasure in a creative way, without violating the restriction. Because this has vague similarities with what he isn't allowed to do, he is punished on the grounds of exploring the boundaries of the restriction. But then, the restriction not to remove any words written by others is such an unambiguous restriction that this cannot be eroded by WMC acting the way he did. (I give WMC permission to edit this text :) ). Count Iblis (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per CI. This block is pointless because it doesn't prevent me repeating this behaviour, viz editing my own talk page. Invalid because nothing in the CC probation permits restrictions on editing of users own talk page William M. Connolley (talk)

This 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).

William M. Connolley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per the reasonning immeadiately above. Note further that PK's reasonning above is invalid: this is not an arbcomm block, but a CC probation block, which is totally different

Decline reason:

There's no acknowledgment that the behavior that led to the block won't be repeated (quite the contrary), and consensus at WP:ANI seems to support the block at the moment (or at the least doesn't object to it). I disagree that the block was invalid. As to the pointlessness, when misbehavior continues on a user's talk page during a block, revocation of talk page privileges is common, so a block certainly isn't pointless nor toothless. -- Atama頭 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The following decline of this unblock request edit-conflicted with Atama's decline above:

You are correct that the block as currently implemented doesn't prevent you from repeating this behaviour on your own talk page. You demonstrate this by repeating the action that led to the imposition of your block, i.e., editing the comment of another editor, by inserting the text "[I assume you mean farcically? - WMC]" into it. Therefore, since you insist on being blocked in a way that also prevents you from repeating the conduct you are blocked for on this page, I am re-blocking you without allowing you access to your talk page. I am also doubling the duration of the block as a result of the aforementioned continued violation of your restriction. You can still appeal this block to ArbCom by mail. Sandstein 21:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your e-mail [Redacted. If I send you an email privately, I expect you to have the common decency not to quote it in public William M. Connolley (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)] I reply as follows: You may appeal to to ArbCom because they are empowered to review blocks (see Wikipedia:BP#Unblocking), not because the block was made in relation to an arbitration case (it was not). I forgot to mention that you can of course also request a review by e-mailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Sandstein 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) For the record, as the one whose comment is referred to in extending the block, I do not object to WMC's insertion of the bracketed aside, and in fact welcome the opportunity to interact with him. I am neither offended nor inconvenienced by this. If he were to do it again to me I would welcome it again. Does the bracket in the middle of my comment disrupt anyone else's encyclopedia experience? I'm pretty sure it does not disrupt mine. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a staggeringly petty block. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...all the same, I do not encourage your embedding bracketed comments to my posts or anyone else's. If you poke an elephant for no good reason, and the elephant gets upset, it's fair to say that it is unwise to poke the elephant further, without regard to whether or not you are technically within your rights to poke the elephant. If you were testing limits or making a point, I think the point is made about as well as it is going to get made. Probably best at this point to declare it a poked elephant and call it a day. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like the admins are going to update the sanction to explicitly forbid this and any other alteration of other people's comments, even on your talk page, except to archive or delete them. Although I'm sure you could still find a boundary case if you tried (what about adding an indent) I would not recommend it. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing AN/I thread

I am viewing the AN/I thread and will make a decision shortly. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rush yourself, there is no great hurry William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block change notification:

Hi WMC: After a discussion on ANI and on Jehochman's and Sandstein's pages, I have changed the block to expire around the original time it was set to expire (tommorrow during the early afternoon), and have re-enabled talk page access. I do have a condition, however until such time as you or others can convince the community or the Arbitration Committee to rescind the CC general sanction on you, please do not edit other people's statements. If you have any questions, I have put this talk page on my watchlist, and you can also email me. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed an exception to the sanction that you may manage your own userspace pages as you see fit, removing or refactoring comments. If that passes, the original block might be lifted. We will see. Jehochman ^Talk 23:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank SF for re-enabling access here. I reject his condition and note that the original block remains invalid: nothing in the CC probation allows restriction of non-CC related pages, such as this one William M. Connolley (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, at such time as you break the terms of it again, you will be blocked, again [what terms would those be? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)]. SirFozzie (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would a compromize where William does not edit other's comments on all pages except on his own talk page as Jehochman has proposed be ok? It seems to me that this would deal with the problem the remedy is supposed to deal with. While from William's POV, CC probation does not apply to non-CC pages, one has to recognize that in practice there may not be a sharp boundary between CC pages and non-CC pages and William edits mostly CC related pages anyway. Having restrictions that are a priori ambiguous is not a good thing. And the people calling for the restriction to apply to William's own talk page, should realize that on a page where you can even completely remove comments, this is an exercise in futility.

If I were William, I would accept this because what I would ultimately want to see is that all adminstrative involvement in this area is based on a clear rational objective and not simply based on a fundamentalistic Wiki-legal reasoning that gives the POV warriors an additional weapon to fight their conflict. Count Iblis (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, that is what I've been saying all along. All these stupid drama-causing blocks are clearly invalid because however you draw the boundaries of the CC probation area, my talk page isn't within them William M. Connolley (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

Very well.. since you've rejected the terms of the unblock, and you've continued to edit other people's statements to insert your comments, I've indefinitely blocked you, until such time as you agree to the terms and stop the disruption. SirFozzie (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a "talk page stalker" as someone else here put it, I've monitored this situation lightly over time. I have no idea who's 'to blame' but this all just seems a little silly. Given that many of you are highly educated, "a little silly" might be a grand understatement. Wikipedia has just indefinitely blocked an editor who has the potential to contribute a great deal to Wikipedia and has in the past for doing something that's very clearly not deceptive. I'm not saying WMC isn't in the wrong because I quite honestly don't know or care. From an outside view, I feel that everyone involved may have let this get out of hand. I'm not here to get into a discussion, just to state the view of an uninvolved editor who I believe is in good standing with WP. Take it or leave it. OlYeller^Talktome 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As completely moronic actions go, that one scores highly. An indef block for no harm at all seems about the most stupid action I've ever seen on wiki. Well done Sir Fathead William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You have new messages

Hello, William M. Connolley. Check your email – you've got mail!
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

NW (Talk) 18:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 566: / Line 566: @@
 Very well.. since you've rejected the terms of the unblock, and you've continued to edit other people's statements to insert your comments, I've indefinitely blocked you, until such time as you agree to the terms and stop the disruption. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 18:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 :As a "talk page stalker" as someone else here put it, I've monitored this situation lightly over time.  I have no idea who's 'to blame' but this all just seems a little silly.  Given that many of you are highly educated, "a little silly" might be a grand understatement.  Wikipedia has just indefinitely blocked an editor who has the potential to contribute a great deal to Wikipedia and has in the past for doing something that's very clearly not deceptive.  I'm not saying WMC isn't in the wrong because I quite honestly don't know or care.  From an outside view, I feel that everyone involved may have let this get out of hand.  I'm not here to get into a discussion, just to state the view of an uninvolved editor who I believe is in good standing with WP. Take it or leave it. [[User:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Ol<font style="color:#FBB117;">Yeller</font></font>]]'''<sup>[[User_talk:OlYeller21|<font style="color:#827839;">Talktome</font>]]</sup> 19:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
+As completely moronic actions go, that one scores highly. An indef block for no harm at all seems about the most stupid action I've ever seen on wiki. Well done Sir Fathead [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley#top|talk]]) 09:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 == Email ==