Revision as of 13:27, 17 September 2009

The Holding Pen

Reviving Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

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

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

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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. 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."

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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 ] - 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)

Current

CC

I've just noticed climate change has accumulated lots of cruft, not to mention a distressing number of obvious errors. If you want to help with cleanup that would be great. BTW you may be interested in this. Boris noticing climate change have bourgeois excess and provocations. Duty is assisting heroic efforts to institute reliability. Basis for new five-year plan here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo. What happened to the Russian accent? It is about time I actually did something useful for climate articles instead of attracting flak for blocking people. OK William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Spiffing William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

augh

I'll admit I didn't really assume good faith about the Abd arbcom given some recent actions of yours, but after reading Abd's posts on the case I've done a complete 180. He is even more annoying than Giovanni33. Jtrainor (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I'm glad you've seen the light in the end :-). Lets hope it isn't an oncoming train William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Judge Dredd

If you think counts as a personal attack for likening you to Judge Dredd then tell me and I will withdraw it. However I thought you migh appreciate it. --BozMo talk 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fair enough (you're pursuing an interesting line there). Can I have the motorbike too? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Had never heard of Judge Dredd. Now why did the title Mutants in Mega-City One make me think immediately of Misplaced Pages? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've mined a rich vein here. I can feel a cabal logo coming on... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Judge Judy... much more fearsome. I'm not sure if my cabal membership is official yet, as he only states it in a "response" I haven't seen posted anywhere official. Verbal chat 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The cabal welcomes new members. All you need is basic sanity and a willingness to shoot from the hip (oh, and the sekret handshake, of course, but we don't talk about that) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You talk waaaay too much to be likened to Dredd :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But he never removes his helmet. Let's hope there isn't a block war. Verbal chat 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For your pleasure

I'd almost forgotten about this little compilation that I started a while ago. It seems especially appropriate lately. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Given that this month's theme is Theatre of the Absurd, did you ever notice Atmospheric models is not simply the plural of Atmospheric model? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but I know now. I might even help William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Plimer's H+E book

FYI, since you asked, fwiw...

At this point, I rather regret assigning myself the role of Plimer's defender -- we're in the same line of work, and he's well-known & well-respected in economic geology. I haven't read his book, and certainly won't buy it -- it seems pretty clear that it was a careless writing job, and that he's (likely) a combative blowhard. Nevertheless -- Plimer deserves NPOV & BLP-compliant treatment, and isn't (in my view) even remotely a Climate change denier. Ah, well. Plus that Ratel guy really rubs me the wrong way.

"Fewer scientific problems are so often discussed, yet so rarely decided by proofs, as whether climatic relations have changed over time." -- Joachim von Schouw, 1826.

Best regards, Pete Tillman (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't offended, actually.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say to his geology. I agree he deserves NPOV and BLP. I disagree that you are giving him NPOV, and re CCD - that is exactly what he is. "a careless writing job" - no, you are evading the issue here and excusing deliberate error. This is like Durkin faking his graphs in TGGWS and people saying "oh dear he made a careless mistake". I think you are deceiving yourself, probably out of respect for his geology role William M. Connolley (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read (or skimmed) his book? I wonder how much of the stuff you see on the web is cherry-picked. Mind, it may be representative... (I hope not). Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it, just browsed the controversy. But... this is nothing new. Plimer has nothing new to say, it is all std.septic junk William M. Connolley (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wheeeeee....

...yow! What a show. And I thought it was a straightforward case, silly me. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well no - you were right; it *was* a straightforward case of a bad block, and the right thing happened - I was unblocked before I noticed I was blocked. After that the traditional refusal to recognise reality set it. Interesting lack of parallels to arbcomm. Looks like agr has run away now William M. Connolley (talk) 06:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom userpage comment

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Disruptive Editing

This individual, which I believe is also this Anon and this Anon has been either adding contentious wording or removing any and all references to Kurds. Just thought I'd let you know. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I also posted a warning on Boyzboyz20's talk page concerning the removal of a picture and was told this, Misplaced Pages is not your private site,you may be an anti-turk but wikipedia is an objective platform. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW do I have to suffer from constant threats like this? Thanks.

]

--Rm125 (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What was the point of your post of 20:11, 12 September 2009? I can't see how it helped. You are both dredging up old sores and it just isn't helpful. Forget it all. Concentrate on improving the article. And if you must discuss these issues of threats and old scores, please don't do it on the article tlak pages. They have nothing to do with the article. Take it to N's talk page - and spell N correctly, it is insulting to care so little that you can't be bothered to spell his name properly - or possibly take it to WP:WQA. But better still take my original advice: address the content, not the contributors William M. Connolley (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like worst is coming to worst...

And I'm sorry to see you go down like this. Thanks for all the good work you did over the past several years. It is appreciated. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

By the discerning ;-). Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom has basically put science-oriented editors on notice with this case: even an inaccurate suspicion of collaborative editing is enough to make one guilty. So if Editor A says all the recent CO2 rise is from natural sources, and Editor B responds saying no, the isotope ratios are all wrong for that; and Editor C says no, the change in N2/O2 ratios are all wrong for that; and Editor D says no, the ocean carbon measurements are all wrong for that, then it's Editors B, C, and D who are the bad guys. We may as well hand over the global warming articles to GoRight and Cla68 and Scibaby, hand over the pharmacology articles to the New Agers, and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The team nableezy-Malik Shabbazz are erasing discussion pages- impossible to communicate

]

they just erase talk pades as a team- not only regular articles. Is it justifiable? Look you asked me to concentrate on the article but they constantly erase my work as a team

Yes, they were entirely correct. As I've told you above: focus on content not on editors, take such discussions elsewhere. I've removed it all. Don't re-add it. I'd threaten you with a block for so doing except arbcomm may actually finally get their act together and make that impossible. N:unlike arbcomm, I do actually work out what is going on, so you don't need to reply to R's posts here William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And I really don't know where this comes into it but Rm125 - just don't do this kind of thing. N was entirely correct to remove the flags which are unwelcome (of course; how could it be otherwise?) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

use of word fu---ck in talk pages- uncivility by nableezy

What do you say? Can we start working on language for a new RfC, or do we let the old one run its course? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Fuck"Some random word" it, just let the old one run its course. This user is incapable of not disrupting anything so there is no point in just giving him another avenue to further disrupt. nableezy - 05:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rm125 (talk • contribs)

Sigh. Please learn that wiki-links get two "["'s, but ext-links only get one. You must have noticed by now that all the links you post end up with spare ['s? As for the use of "fuck" there - you need to distinuish stuff directed at individual editors (such as "fuck off X", which is definitely not acceptable) as opposed to generalities ("Fuck this for a game of soldiers", which is discouraged).

I gave you some advice before, which is Slow Down. You're not listening. I'm really not sure what the point of talking to you is if you don't listen William M. Connolley (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Article: Plus-size model

William, I appeal to you because of your assistance to the plus-size model article's editors recently. We have an edit warring issue with User 79.97.166.36 Can you monitor the article, please?3RingCircus (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The less-burnt side of the pancake

Well, now that you're no longer an admin, you can stop feeling responsible for admin-type requests. That should free up about 80% of your on-wiki babysitting. Think about the number of good books you could read. The lowering of your resting heart rate. You could drop me a message about writing an article (or more likely Boris or someone else who does what you do), or you could ignore wiki entirely. And you should not feel bad at all for the increased workload on the other admins who are willing to deal with controversial topics. Hey, not your decision, right?

Happy vacation and I will be grumblingly checking my watchlist :-), Awickert (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I do having some reading stacked up. And there is the Stubaital project to do. Not to mention the attack page to finish up William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Splendid! (Said in my head in the best faux English accent I can muster.) And I'm now watching Stubaital, might look into the geology and glacial history. Awickert (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff

User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Lord Dundreary (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

O, the humanity! MastCell  06:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

► RATEL ◄ 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a malicious sock m'lud, and you're banned. As for the deletion, thanks to M William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a sock for sure, just never came in my mind. Should have thought of that.Abce2|This isnot a test 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the close, and taken the listing on as my own, analogous to what CHL did recently at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination). I do think there is merit in the nomination, I'm afraid, and I see where you were asked about removal before: . Others may not agree, but I think calling people fools probably does verge into the area we tend to disallow, even on user pages. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And I thought arbcomm was a waste of time :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and could you be so kind as to point to the actual request for removal? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, at least not in so many words, so I'm afraid I cannot do you that kindness. The implication was clear enough to me, though. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful with a misleading choice of words in future, especially when you are here to complain about choice of words William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, point taken, I shall try to do better in future, and apologies for any confusion engendered. If you prefer to discuss this further, would you prefer on my page or yours? I'd rather keep discussion in one place, it feels like we're discussing about the same thing in both. Fair warning, my page standard practices are a bit different than yours, in that I hardly ever remove things, regardless of where the convo goes. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets use your page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Here's some unasked for, and possibly unwelcome, advice. You will probably be tempted to vent in some memorable fashion in the next few hours. When that happens, I wonder if you could dial it back to a few biting remarks? Just think how disappointed some people will be when you don't explode.

And yes, I think you've been one of our better admins.Cardamon (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been so long-drawn out, nothing exciting will happen in the next few hours. Still, the advice is well meant and I appreciate it. I'll be expanding the why-arbcomm-aren't-up-to-the-job page, but that's a slow process William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, WMC. We disagree about lots of things, but I did not want to see you lose the mop, as I explained on the "Proposed decision" talk page. If you chose to go through another RFA, please email me so I can vote for you. Best wishes, CWC 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you. That is kind, and I will remember William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

RedKing7 is still at it

I am tired of being nice. He is now adding verification required template to these missions (see diff, which was marked This list needs verification - For example, sources show S. Korea does not have diplomatic mission to Taipei (RoC)).

On the basis of his constant edit warring, refactoring of talk pages, display of bad faith, incapacity or inability to take on board the views of other editors and blatant contempt of Misplaced Pages processes and the community, and his failure to adjust his behaviour when we have communicated to him (from friendly advice, to more formal warnings, and ultimately with blocks), I would like to see him permanently banned from Misplaced Pages.

Us editors have lives outside Misplaced Pages, and we cannot be expected to constantly have to explain ourselves to him when he is not listening.

I support free speech, and would hate to see anybody banned. But the community needs to be considered, and at any rate RedKing7 has not been a prolific or helpful contributor. He doesn't write about anything; he just wants to disrupt Misplaced Pages to make a point.

I will leave it at that, and hope you have enough patience to deal with him in an appropriate and fair way. Kransky (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He has had numerous warnings and is now clearly pointless. I've indef'd him William M. Connolley (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I just hope he can set his mind at ease with a new hobby. Kransky (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

UHI awarded GA status

I've left a critique there, can you comment - please? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey! You dis-a my work, I get-a you rubbed out, no? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Im-a da' one playin' da mobster.... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, look-a, I'm-a-Italian tu. Awickert (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence?

It is all a bit calm and peaceful here, so... anyone been watching Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Evidence? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Crapsticks - when did David Tombe get unblocked? There are at least five good editors presenting evidence, hopefully I can skip out on all the background verbiage. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

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

As a result of this case:

1. The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Misplaced Pages, 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.
3. 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.
4. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks.
5. 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 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

I'm sorry to hear this, William. You were a good admin. I hope you won't let it bother you. SlimVirgin 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to notify you of this request for clarification. 99.27.133.215 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

Hello, William M. Connolley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi WMC, a report relating to you was made at AN and I've moved it to ANI. It includes a call (not from me) for you to be blocked, so I thought a notification was necessary. EdChem (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd seen it, but not that it has now died . Looks like the std.malcontents William M. Connolley (talk) 12:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem... the thread did suceed in producing a reversion following by full page protection until August 2010, so the initial poster got what they sought, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The full prot looks insane, and the deliberate pre-prot revert looks at best dubious. I've asked Uncle G to explain himself William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G insists that all is well, but I am unable to understand that. I've re-listed it William M. Connolley (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"Looks like the std.malcontents"?? I'd be a malcontent too if I had an STD :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to comments on my talk page

Sorry, I was away for the weekend and only had cell phone connectivity, which made it difficult to edit. (The "temp break" was meant as a temporary section break--the new section tab was the only way I could add to the end of the page--but the interpretation adopted is fine too. I wish I could claim the wisdom to take a few days to chill without being forced to.)

At the suggestion of others at the administrator's notice board discussion, which is now archived, I reviewed WP:BLPSE. The guideline it references says.

"Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Misplaced Pages article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance."

It also makes it clear that I was not an involved editor:

"Taking action under this provision shall not constitute involvement for the purpose of future such actions."

Others have pointed out that page protection would have been a better solution and as one who rarely uses blocks I have to agree that I should have tried that first. I am truly sorry for that. We still disagree on the underlying issue. I recognize you have Misplaced Pages's best interests at heart, but I hope you can recognize that I do too. I'd be happy to discuss the issues with you if you are willing, or cooperate in any appropriate dispute resolution mechanism you choose. Otherwise, we can both just move on. --agr (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was graceful. I'm quite happy to consider this satisfactorily resolved between us. Best wishes, William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm very pleased we were able to resolve this. My best to you too.--agr (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I forgot to apologize for getting you involved in the situation that caused your defrocking. I do apologize. Hipocrite (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not at all your fault, and nothing to apologise for. This f*ck-*up is enitrely at arbcomm's door William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks

If you have any more problems with that sockfarm, please let me know and I will endeavor to take care of the matter quickly. Vassyana (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a backlog at WP:AN3 too. I wonder why. Maybe an arb could help fix that problem. Verbal chat 20:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@Va: thanks. @Ve: it is off my watchlist now :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've just cleaned up my watchlist of all or most of the admin-y things on it; so if I don't respond where ever, you'll know why. Gosh the odd things I found there. My favourite was If the earth's waters rose by over 9000 meters, covering up all of earth's land, Grop's erection could restore things to normal as it would make masses of water spurt out into the sky and into space. Alas this fine article appears to be a redlink :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Although how I ended up watching Rampant Snail Sex I don't know William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ineteresting

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rollback

I noticed you're missing the rollback feature. Just ask an admin and they can give you rollback. --TS 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• You now haz rollback Spartaz 11:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to you both! My climb back to ultimate power starts here :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey - I'm sorry about the desysop. Misplaced Pages is poorer for it, even if the seven blinkered naifs who voted for it don't realize it right now.

I want to apologize for getting a tad impatient at times (perhaps an understatement) with the arbitration process. I hope that my actions didn't back them into choosing the course of action that they did, but I'm sorry for any detrimental effect on you that might participation might have had.

I notice that they've very effectively shut down any further discussion of the problems with their process by blanking all the case talk pages. While I'm sure that they will protest that they only do it as a courtesy and out of the goodness of their own hearts, I will observe for the record that if they really were interested in discussing or fixing the issues raised they could have easily done so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion of the page blanking is at User talk:Woonpton, where she says "it blows my mind" that the arbs are using her concerns as a pretext for blanking the entire case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

How it seems to me is that I blundered into something where I maybe didn't understand all the issues, and I'm still struggling to decide just where I come down on it all, as can be seen by my ambivalence and maybe even what seems like waffling; I'm just trying to see and understand the different views on the matter. I do see where you're coming from, I think, and I agree that it's a problem that when a page is blanked, it's not a simple matter to bring up a diff by clicking on an entry on a contributions page; you just get the top page that says "this page has been courtesy blanked." I didn't know that, and I do think it's a problem.

I haven't always agreed with you, and sometimes I've not understood at all why you do some of the things you do, but when it's all said and done, I see the loss of your tools as a significant net loss for the encyclopedia. There are so few administrators left that will tackle the fringe areas, and I don't see more rushing in to fill the gap; the only foreseeable outcome is that the quality of content will be compromised.

I'm tired and discouraged and I'm going, but I wish you all the best, Woonpton (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion re application of guidance in proposed deletion of band article

Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion at . It concerns the proposed deletion of the article on the band The Shells, for purported lack of notability, and follows up on a discussion that you took part in this week. While I have no idea what your view will be on this issue (if any), and have never had contact with you before, I recognize that you may be interested in joining or following the indicated ongoing discussion.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See the black flag at the top of this page :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Funny flag, no doubt with a story behind it. But the issue there isn't limited to admins (I believe).--VMAsNYC (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter's Principle

Review of same says "Laurence Peter observed that bosses who are competent in their roles tend to assess employees according to their output and results, whereas incompetent bosses tend to assess employees according to their input and adherence to rules and policies, etc. This remains a feature of poorly managed organisations and hierarchies today" --BozMo talk 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

response from our Solomon disagreement

William, regarding this.

I have probably been unfair to you. I realise that electronic communication is not ideal, and it's easy to rub people the wrong way. I learnt about you years ago when I first became interested in the question, "Is the science of global warming really settled or isn't it?" Indeed, your Misplaced Pages global warming article was one of the first that I read. I followed a few other pages and noted your name in the revision histories. Later I realised you were a contributor at RealClimate. I found your blog. I have read it for a while now. I read your paper on the myth of the global cooling consensus in the 1970s and was interested because I have independently come to the same conclusion. I have looked at quite a number of papers from the 1970s and haven't been able to find many predicting cooling whilst I found plenty that were concerned about warming. There you go.

I was hoping I could think of something really positive and constructive to say, like can we just have a beer & settle our disagreements? That's not going to work because I'm over here in Australia. No I can't think of any really obvious, constructive solution to this problem. I could say, I do care about the environment and I am not your enemy. I think the same is true of Solomon and that's why Solomon has found his way high on my list of priorities. Solomon. If we must disagree over Solomon, I guess I just want to say, can we try not to argue & get upset over trivia? This might seem like the pot calling the kettle black because I think we both have exactly the same view of this last dispute -- i.e. I believe you stepped unnecessarily to create a fight over nothing and ended up lowering the quality of the article and I think you have exactly the same view over what I did.

The appeal is there all the same: can we both try? I have no idea how well I'll go with that either but I still think, can we try? Or any other ideas? I don't know if this helps but I hope you can somehow, vaguely, detect the sincerity. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Errm well. I did that because you invited it, and because I didn't think it was constructive. As I said, my remark was directed at Kim. If you're not prepared to believe what I write (which is to call me a liar (and really it is. You simply can't get round that with smooth words)), I don't see how we can have a productive conversation. So if you'd like to do something contrsuctive and positive you could make it clear that you do believe me, and strike that piece off the talk page. Also, you haven't really produces a meaningful response to I had referred to Barry Brooks' doctorate out of nothing than innocent respsect to a CV far more impressive than my own - that would indeed be a good attitude to take. Why don't you take that attitude on wiki? It really does look like you are extending that courtesy to people who you wish to quote favourably but not otherwise. It would be desirable for you to dispell that illusion,, if it is indeed one. But you need to do that by your editing habits not by writing nice messages on peoples talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... have a look at the Miskolczi debate thread page where I demanded that Dr. Pierrehumbert apologise to Dr. Miskolczi for nasty insults that he made. :) There's plenty of evidence out there that I have a perhaps eccentric habit of addressing academics by their titles. In here though? I'm a bit confused, to be honest. You're saying Boris, Stephan, Kim -- they're all Ph.D's? If so, I just didn't know. Look, I'll happily strike whatever you want me to strike from the discussion. I can't promise to become a perfectly calm, dispassionate editor when I wake up tomorrow. Best wishes. Alex Harvey (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not piled it higher and deeper, but Boris and Stephan have (or at least what corresponds to it, local to the place they live). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh... Piled it Higher and Deeper. So that's what it means. Alex Harvey (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy - pah! My realm are "the natural things" (and why anybody would think that first-order logic is a natural thing is lost in the mist!). But Boris is a philosopher - as is William, even if he uses Reverse Polish Notation to hide it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In here though? - now it is my turn to be confused. You are suggesting that you will respect people for the quality of their CVs, as long as they don't edit wikipedia? I can't believe that you mean that. What you do mean, I think, is that while you're prepared to subscribe to the concept when it pleases you, you will drop it as soon as it becomes inconvenient, as it is when discussing GW here. If you mean something else by it, then you need to clarify. Look, I'll happily strike... - was there anything unclear about my previous remarks? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(indent getting confused) RPN? Not at all - it is just that, coming from a respectable old university, we feel no need to use cod-latin to dignify ourselves like the upstarts :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)