Revision as of 14:36, 12 October 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

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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 the sympathy. Don't worry about your own behaviour: your contributions were very welcome. The blanking is weird; when I last looked they were "not stonewalling" by, err, not doing anything William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 17 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)

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)

Advice sought

Various people have been kind enough to ask me to run for admin, so that they could vote for me. Some have been unkind enough to ask me to run, so they could vote against. But certainly it would be a way to clear the air. The obvious disadvantage (apart from the even more obvious one of letting the std.malcontents vent their bile) would be that quite a few honest folk would simply say "not so soon after arbcomm sanction" out of respect for arbcomm. Or so I suspect.

Anyway, here is your chance to offer wise advise. Be brief or be truncated. Be helpful or be removed. This isn't a vote. I will clean up "mess" as it goes when I can.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do it

• Yo.  pablo_hablo. 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, Misplaced Pages needs people like you as admins. If you do go for it and it doesn't work out, I think you should try again later. When I saw what happened I immediately assumed that it was only temporary as the correct action would eventually be taken. OlYeller 16:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Go for it. You've, on the whole, done far more good than bad. Jtrainor (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't

• Why create drama? -GTBacchus 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• It'd almost certainly end up like Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2 with the std.oppose being "wait a while". -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• You'll like not being an admin. Trust me. Give it a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• While it's not quite the same as MZM2 which was run during the arb case, it is quite soon after. Some might see it as thumbing your nose - I wouldn't - but I think you'll get opposes just for that so giving it a while would be worthwhile. Might be healthy to reflect and take a break anyway. –xeno 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• It's up to you, and I'd support your run, but it may not be the right time. More below, to keep this short. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Don't do it yet. Though I would support you wouldn't pass and it would just be a drama-fest. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I suspect that the planets will be more favorably aligned a little over three months from now. N p holmes (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strangely also I think waiting a little is better. Making it a sort of snub or vote of no confidence on Arbcom would be fun but it might prevent all sorts of good people from supporting you, and confuse the issue that we all want you back as admin but we may not think humiliation for even a weak Arbcom is in the community interest. For example I think you should offer NewYorkBrad as the Arbcom member who actually read everything the honour of nominating you, and etiquette would prevent that without a decent pause. Waiting three months and expressing some sort of regret is more likely to give the best outcome, which is you doing your important role with strong support from the whole community apart from a few sad souls (as before). If you do stand you need to count to ten on answering questions by the way cos you've been feeding the Trolls too much of late ;) --BozMo talk 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'd recommend wait, just so people don't go around saying you have no respect for wikipedia, or bill it as a no confidence vote in arbcom (we saw how they reacted to that one with the FT2 fiasco). However, I will vote for you now or later - unless you block me again. I will also vote against ArbCom if given the opportunity, ArbCom is clearly broken, but they should be separate. How about you all vote for me instead? Verbal chat 15:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is there any conceivable way that you could avoid contentious areas or subjects for three months? Cases are not always decided based on the pure merits, because many people are using a 20,000-foot view and don't have time to look at every diff. The grand-overall-average view of your work is probably that you tackle many difficult issues, and often act forcefully. Credit for the good may be diluted by not fully understanding what it is that you do. Arbcom may be deciding based on the 'often act forcefully' rather than the judgment that has gone into your actions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Don't bother - adminship isn't worth it any more (and I speak as someone who was an admin for six years). It'll make you the target of cranks and thugs on- and off-wiki, as I'm sure you've already found, and you won't get any backup from an Arbcom dominated by dim-witted wannabe politicians who are more interested in posturing than in promoting the development of a high-quality encyclopedia. I suspect that you will be able to be more effective without adminship, to be honest. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• If someone snatches away your mop, it might be a good invitation to move on to activities that are more enjoyable than volunteer janitorial work. Awickert (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended commentary

(feel free to delete this extended section) I'm gobsmacked by Thatcher's recent claims of your involvement and misuse of tools, and I'm concerned that until that gets straightened out it's going to torpedo you. (I thought it was No Big Deal to semiprotect or even protect a page – even a page that you frequently edit – if it is being extensively targeted by sockpuppets or vandals. Obviously any sort of protection to 'win' a content dispute is out, but doing to it to stop block evasion and vandalism should be a legitimate use of the tools.) I'm also concerned that some people will treat the RfA as a referendum on the ArbCom — which cuts both ways for you. (Contrary to GTBacchus, I wouldn't see you as using this as a vehicle for vindication; you genuinely do (or have done) an extremely large amount of useful admin-type stuff which does help the project, particularly at AN/3RR.)

Cynically, I also note that waiting until Abd returns and casts his verbose vote against you might help to persuade fence-sitters that your actions were an understandable response — though a reference to his evidence presentation during the arbitration, or to any old version of Talk:Cold fusion, might suffice in that regard.

Finally, it may be useful to wait until after the concerns about the seriously broken process followed during the arbitration are presented and the ArbCom offered a chance to explain and defend their actions. Editors are likely to be more sympathetic to your candidacy after a bit of cool reflection, examination, and hindsight reveal to the community just how badly they screwed up (in terms of process, and not just outcome). If they stonewall or gloss over rather than acknowledging and fixing their errors, it further helps your case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, I struck it. Shall I beat my breast publicly? I screwed up. -GTBacchus 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I got an edit conflict when I posted my extraordinarily overlong comment — I didn't realize that there had been a teapot tempest while I was typing. Consider my comment modified to reflect your new statement — even if you wouldn't see a run so soon as a vehicle for vindication (in lieu of encyclopedia improvement), I wouldn't be surprised to see a few objections on that basis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(you're still free to delete if you want) Personally, I don't have much trust left after this final ArbComm, I see yet more editors leave Misplaced Pages because of the total mismanagement, etc. etc. I am not going to give do or don't advice. You have my support, strong support (I already watchlisted the page). I do fear the concerns of others above, it will be trolled by your opponents (but those will do that anyway), regulars will fear the Arb.Comm. decision, and I think you need a strong case. I would be delighted to see you pass, so soon after the closure, it would be a proof that the decision of the ArbComm was totally wrong, that you have wide support for your actions and decisions, and it would strengthen a case against ArbComm to show that they did loose touch with reality. Though I hope, I do not see any chance that they will acknowledge, let alone repair their errors. Maybe they will adapt from now, but it is too late. --Dirk Beetstra 22:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Decision

Thanks for all the advice. The answer is that the noes win the day; I especially like Boris's advice. This is in principle the wrong decision but wiki doesn't seem to be a very principled place nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc H. Rudov

Hi William: Anonymous user 98.234.124.104 is up to his old tricks on the Marc H. Rudov article. Here's the proof.. Can you make the article off limits to new users permanently? We've been through this three times before. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Your persistence is important

I want to thank you for your persistence in defending content above all. Much of the community seems to have forgotten that this is an encyclopedia. Your work in fighting for science, against those who would seek to have it removed and muddied, is important. It's hard work, and you've had to fight against the bureaucracy to do so. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (belatedly) for this! William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fools and their foolishness

Regarding , 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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)

Six!? I've only managed to square the circle, create an infinite orgone generator, and prove the subluxation theory of disease this morning. I obviously need to try harder! Vassyana (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc H. Rudov article

Who should I go to with the problems on this article? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. You could ask one of the arbs :-). When I was an admin I had a duty to care; now I don't and (sorry) I don't. Slightly more seriously, you'll find that 400+ watchlist this page, so you've now advertised your problem. Perhaps one of them will help William M. Connolley (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to the ongoing nature of the problem, I've semi-protected the article for three months. Vassyana (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi for 3 months seems an overreaction to one IP edit in the last 2 weeks... -Atmoz (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Email forwarding

Nope, it is something I wouldn't do as I wouldn't like people I correspond with forwarding mail to third parties either. It is a breach of trust as far as I am concerned. You framed your question like you think I may have, is that the case? --Martintg (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I decline to answer that question. But thank you for your reply to my question William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I know why you asked, just saw your posting to the ArbCom case evidence page. William, you could have easily downloaded the maillist archive, I just did and searched it and this email you quote is not present. Who ever told you that your emails appeared in this list was selling you pork pies, the question now is why? --Martintg (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't downloaded the archive. I don't know if that mail is present or not. I'll leave that to those who have access William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The email is present in the archive in 20090202-2236-. If you think forwarding emails is a breach of trust, why did you do it? Offliner (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum to my previous point: while I don't know if its in the archive or not - you seem to disagree, but I'm sure it will become clear - but if it is not, I am at a loss to know how the person who notified me of this matter received a copy of the email. They were not the intended recipient; so the recipient has forwarded the mail on to someone without my permission (this is assuming that the recipients email account was not compromised, which I suppose remains a possibility) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference number, found it now in this downloaded list. That is odd. I don't see it my gmail archive. I'll have to investigate further, we have been looking at whether someone's mail account was broken into (I haven't changed my password for ages until this whole thing blew up).

I'm sure you would have corresponded to a number of list members over time, so many of them would have been aware of your phone number anyway. That it became public is the fault of the hacker/leaker, that is the issue I have. --Martintg (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the level of contrition I was looking for. Indeed, I don't see any contrition at all. You will agree, I take it, that this falsifies No any private information was disclosed in emails, except information about the participants themselves and information that was openly posted by others in wikimedia space.? Do you care to make any comment as to how it might have found its way onto the list? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

William, I've investigated this further as I said I would, and it was accidental, full explanation is given on the evidence page. You will note that the other emails that you sent me (and dozens for other admins and user) were not forwarded on to the maillist. I don't thing this particular accident, which I apologise for, falsifies Biophy's assertion, since he joined the list later and would not have been aware of it. --Martintg (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pray, how did you "accidentally" type I got this message from William at the top of the forwarded email? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I annotate all my emails I keep when I forward them to my off-web mail account out of habit, some with more meaningful text, some with less. --Martintg (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You forwarded the e-mail to the mailing list with the intention of sharing it with the list members because Russavia was the topic of discussion at that moment, and the list messages prior to and after that forward concern Russavia and the intrigues your group was involved in with him. This forward was no accident, but rather on topic and relevant to the current discussion on the list. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I've received other emails from both William and other admins in regard to all sorts of issues, including disruptive editors discussed at different times on the list, point to any instance when their email was forwarded to the list. --Martintg (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So then, it was a coincidence that you "accidentally" sent the e-mail to the list right at the time the topic of Russavia was being heavily discussed? In other words, if we look at your "accidentally" forwarded e-mail in the context of other list messages that appear just before and after it, do we see a pattern or does the forwarded mail appear out of context? Please answer this question. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"at the time the topic of Russavia was being heavily discussed", are you kidding? I count two messages that discuss Russavia on Feb 3, and it was about his incivility, not 3RR. William wasn't the only admin that sent me mail at that time, another sent email related to Russavia's incivility, it would have been more logical to forward that email as it was more relevant than William's, if I was in the habit of forwarding emails. --Martintg (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren posted to the list about Russavia in on February 2, 19:15. In that message, he described Russavia's behavior and wondered if it should be noted in a report at ANI. According to the old headers in , you then proceeded to send an e-mail to WMC sometime on the same day (2009-0202;exact timestamp unknown), anywhere between 19:15 and 22:03; WMC's response is dated at 22:03. So, 33 minutes after receiving WMC's response, you forwarded it to the list at 22:36. The very next message in the queue is . This message is from you and it is dated 22:53, 17 minutes after forwarding the e-mail. In that message, you make reference to Russavia's avoidance of the 3RR, which was the topic of your previous message, a forward from WMC in response to your concerns about Russavia's 3RR, and WMC saying it isn't a 3RR. The jig, as they say, is up. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the timeline, which shows just how irrelevant William's email was to the topic of discussion. I respond to a question about incivility by forwarding an email about editwarring and 3RR, yeah right. lol. --Martintg (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the timeline shows that Digwuren raised the topic of Russavia, you contacted WMC subsequently, and then you forwarded WMC's message to the list with a description for the list members telling them where you got it. Then, in your next message to the list, you commented about the results of the 3RR report discussed in the e-mail from WMC. Game, set, match. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, topic of Russavia's incivility is posted, I subsequently email William about edit warring, hmmm.... This is becoming rather Pythonesque. You know, some people can walk and chew gum at the same time. --Martintg (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The "deny, deny, deny" tactic is somewhat played out by your group. First the mailing list is a forgery, then it's a "hacking", and now various misdeeds are "accidents" and misinterpretations. If you can't convince WMC or anyone else of your motives, then what's the point? Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The original claim was that over half of the 3000+ emails were about "getting Russavia", so yes, the response that this list is a forgery is valid. Hacking, as opposed to "whistle blowing" still remains the most likely vector in my view. Misinterpretations is most definitely valid too, coincidental events interpreted as evidence of conspiracy is a quite common thing. --Martintg (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "original claim"; That sounds like hyperbole, not a claim. And to date, there remains no evidence of a forgery. Please show me one e-mail that was fabricated. Just one, please. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WMC, your e-mail found its way on to the list because Martintg took it upon himself to forward your private e-mail to the EE mailing list, and in the mailing list message Martintg admits forwarding your mail. Is there a reason Martintg cannot take full responsibility for doing this onwiki? Viriditas (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the arbcomm page. On the balance of evidence so far, I don't believe you. Thus, I am obliged to reject your apology, since it is conditional on the forwarding being an accident William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration for Quantum Mysticism

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Quantum mysticism article and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --☯Lightbound☯ 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That request is a mistake. If you're interested in advice please ask for it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Clouds

See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Why_are_clouds_so_.22lumpy.22.3F. I guess you must know about this? --BozMo talk 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Our name

I don't care what you call us. The only part of "brainwashed Moonie" I object to, is the 'brainwashed' part. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

I had meant to keep this quiet while it was gradually being developed, but my stalkers have latched onto it. Any suggestions for additional points to mention would be appreciated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew it when it was called "reflections"; it is linked from User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff as it says some things I wanted to say. I think the main bit missing is something I was going to add to my page but you can have it: You know how hard it is to start from the middle of some dispute brought to, say, ANI, and work out what is going on? Arbcomm is like that too, and arbcomm in general finds it too hard to bother with. So their central technique is to ignore everything that goes before (or make random confused refs to it) and instead focus on behaviour during the case. This is why cases are so long and rambling - it isn't a mistake, its deliberate. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your questions

I couldn't quite understand C's comments on RfAr concerning you, so I investigated a little. Law (talk · contribs) and C were wikifriends. See C's talk archives (eg #5 onwards) and also these messages in August from C on Law's talk page when he retired, before the AE unblock problems (scroll down the page to "Retirement"). Mathsci (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, curious. Clearly there is some stuff there. "We need some more Law around here" is rather ironic given the out-of-process unblock, but I still don't see enough there to explain it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Law had retired in late August. So calling for more Law especially in such an outrageous circumstance as Sandstein's preposterous and abusive block seemed pretty reasonable. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ex-admin

William, I probably should have dropped by with this when the case closed. Noticed you were running similar image on your talk page. Durova 15:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Arrr... I like that... I may have to steal it one day myself... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks. Yes, I rather like that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

maximum entropy porduction edits

Please see discussion on talk page and afd. Removing the stubs in the outlines for Ziegler and Dewar was exactly what we didn't want, we are debating what to do with Swenson. All the thermo tutorials can probably go or be greatly reduced. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What is an RFCU? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. Now WP:SPI I think William M. Connolley (talk) 14:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, any idea what check user uncovers that makes it so sensitve that us normal people can't just click it? I would hesitate on this just to stay focused on the topic but the user(s) do seem to have a particular Swenson focus that isn't backed up by citation counts or, by consensus here, on merit of topic or coverage. It may be helpful to determine if the IP of those edits likely comes from a Swenson collaborator or even antagonist or has other conflicts. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a breach of peoples anonynmity so is sensitiver. But if you suspect many of the commenters from the "Swenson team" are actually Swenson, then it is helpful to have them checked. Though (read all the caveats) you need a good case; they won't do them speculatively William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the identities matter except to get some prognosis for collateral damage with Swenson spam as we have already found some. I find it hard to believe they don't at least know each other but I wouldn't object to having them appear on the AfD page if they think they can support their POV. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Beeb

Re Isn't the BBC considered reliable? Quarstion (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I would think it would be, but you might be surprised with the "regulars" with this article. Cla68 (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC) - no, the Beeb isn't a WP:RS for science. is an obvious counter-example William M. Connolley (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The BBC, NYTimes, and any other major media outlets reporting that climate change is not following the IPCC's predictions is significant. Those outlets synthesize the various reports from "scientific" organizations. So, how "welcome" is my opinion? Cla68 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Err yes, this is the problem: you don't understand the IPCCs "predictions" and neither does the Beeb. Which is why its fine for reporting-opinion type articles (GWC) but not for science articles (GW). The Beeb is incorrect to assert that this hasn't been "predicted", for example William M. Connolley (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true, actually. The IPCC has not predicted short-term climate trends, so I stand corrected on that. Cla68 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, You surprise me, pleasantly, and I withdraw my assertion that you don't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Alex Harvey

WMC, please stop harassing Alex. ATren (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ATren, that's a good one! You almost made me splorf my coffee. WMC, mind WP:BAIT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SBHC, please stop harassing fishermen by stealing their bait. Verbal chat 13:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

ATren, have you reproved Alex for flinging accusations of vandalism yet? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(Moved from my talk page, to keep the discussion in one place -- ATren)

So, . Its wrong, of course. But since you're so keen on not "making light of his transgressions", please point to the diff where you ask AH to stop mudslinging William M. Connolley (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather than wibbling elsewhere , please answer questions on your own talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'd actually read what he wrote before attacking him again, you'd discover that he apologized for his incivility on his talk . I know you read it, because your response was telling him to "read the fucking diff for once", which is ironic since you seemed not to read his. Now please stop harassing him. I will respond no further on this thread. ATren (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The diff you reference is not an apology. It would appear to be that you are being asymmetrically generous. apologies won't be offered on this occasion is more explicit, don't you think? And no, I didn't say "read the fucking diff for once" William M. Connolley (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Vine, radio 2

On the show today a couple of "sceptics" had at a climate change scientist, and tomorrow they are spending the day with him to see what happens. All very scientific :) http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/jeremy-vine/ Verbal chat 13:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The beeb seems to have gone a bit cr*p on GW recently: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/what_happened_to_global_warmin.php. Must be the weather :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, even Jeremy thought that article was rubbish. If anywhere that article should have been in the magazine section. Hopefully some complaints are winging their way across. The short segment today was ok, and seemed to have been initiated by that article. Hopefully the follow up will be interesting. The sceptics did come across as a bit odd - it's all a tax and science funding scam according to them. The scientist (I forget the name) came up with quite witty rebuttals. Verbal chat 14:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)