Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/William M. Connolley

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of William M. Connolley or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

 * He states "I'm not very interested in BLP" - strong oppose just for that.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh  16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, he certainly was upfront in citing the numerous ArbCom cases in which he's been cited, but I wouldn't consider them illustrations of ArbCom's "failings" so much as they are of his. With that track record, I would have voted to desysop him too.  Definite oppose here.    RGTraynor  14:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Problematic. Not a serious candidate. Oppose.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO the best of only three serious candidates of this batch. Clearly showed up how lazy current Arbcom were and desysoped for showing them up (look beyond the headline to the actual sequence of events: they took on a frivolous case and allowed it to carry on without supervision, WMC's block was specifically not to gain advantage in the case, and rather to make the point that the case existing was so clearly against project interest). Does not suffer fools gladly but worth serious scrunity and certainly respect. In my case I extend this to support. --BozMo talk 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose on the basis of this user's long history of original research and conflicts of interest especially relating to Global Warming. --Tjsynkral (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shortness of questions, many of which are one word answers, and lack of detail on statement page is an automatic Strong Oppose for me. In addition the recent ArbCom case and too recent history of problematic editing cast doubt on the users intentions in running for this position. --nn123645 (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to my history with this editor, I won't go on at length here except to say that I strongly oppose due to what has been in my opinion a history of tool misuse, personal attacks, and conflicts of interest. Oren0 (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support, of course. ArbCom suffers from indecisiveness, and eternal proceedings. Note that the Signpost's standard column is titled "The Report on Lengthy Litigation". We need someone like William, who is not afraid to actually do something, and who has a proven track record of efficient community service. Sure, he is not always perfect. But who is? His (very few) flaws are out in the open because he actually does/did useful work on the project, and in contentious areas like pseudoscience and 3RR enforcement. I can keep a perfect record and have everybody love me if I spend half my time fixing typos and half my time writing articles on the geography of some mountain in Fidji. But that does not qualify me for ArbCom. No Bullshit! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: I have known William since long before Wikipedia existed, and I also know how the ArbCom works. While I don't agree with every one of his views, nor with all his actions on the site, I believe he has the required abilities to be helpful in the Arbitration process. That is the most important thing: there are not many strong candidates in any one year, and the community should give them support rather than get distracted by superficial arguments. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support WMC is not afraid to take difficult decisions. Sole Soul (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lacks the temperament and the skills to be a competent arbitrator. -- Simple  Paradox   22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While I agree with Stephan Shultz and Charles Matthews, I also unfortunately agree with SimpleParadox. In addition, while I do not have qualms about having a nonadmin on Arbcom (viz Cla68), I am uncomfortable with having a recently de-adminned admin on Arbcom. Martinp (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support, Tjsynkral explained it above. With WMC as Arbitrator, there is no chance that Tjsynkral could win a case in which he disputes scientific results based on unreliable WSJ editorials by invoking RS, OR etc. etc. Based on a recent Arbcom case in which I was involved, I'm not sure if other Arbitrators are as qualified as WMC is to read through wikilayering, put such nonsensical arguments aside and get to the heart of the dispute. Count Iblis (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget why Wikipedia is such a high profile website yielding the first search results on Google searches. This is because of the high quality of science articles. But these articles are edited based on the facts and the wiki-rules are not applied there in a religious way. The fact that the sceptics could not divert the high profile Global Warming article is in large part William's contribution. Had this been different, Wikipedia may well have been a less prominent website. People who are now criticizing Wikipedia William, would likely not edit here in the first place. Count Iblis (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh  16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose I'm with SimpleParadox and Martinp, and Count Iblis just further convinces me: William is far too concerned about truth to hold such a position. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh  16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongest oppose: He very intelligently pushes his POV --Pevos (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh  16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Clearly there are some serious editors who have misgivings about WMC and clearly there are some not remotely serious editors who have objections as well. What I guess we are not going to see is frivilous editors stating their support for him. FWIW (not much perhaps) as far as I can see there is only one oppose above from an Admin versus three supports. But the night is young. --BozMo talk 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh  16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose. If William does not become an arbitrator, I'll have a chance to get my ban revoked. I can then edit global warming related pages again without having to create sockpuppets Scibaby (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC) funny but I am striking this out in case any one does not realise it is not actually Scibaby...
 * I have voted to Strongly Oppose this candidate due to significant involvement in drama on the Wikipedia project. Losing your job as administrator does not deserve a promotion to the arbitration committee. Connolley should not be Wikipedia's personal Kaz Hirai. I simply cannot contribute my support to anyone that could potentially devalue the integrity of the Arbitration Committee more than it already has. I desire to cancel the soap opera, rather than help renew it for another season with brand new cast members, or, in this particular case, a contract renewal. Vodello (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support. The 2009 ArbCom drifted far too deep into intellectual relativism for my comfort - I'm sorry, but some editors are and should be more equal than others. I believe those who are contributing actual science to the project are already at a disadvantage against the less intellectually-honest hordes of Skeleton Warriors, since the latter group can easily make up new bullshit on a whim, and doesn't have the same intellectual and emotional attachment to their POV as men of science do to theirs. Placing people such as William on the ArbCom would serve to put contributors of actual merit on a more equal footing with the hottentots, and probably result in less burnout. Badger Drink (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Weak Oppose This one was tough. I agree with others that a "take no crap" stance is needed. Far too many editors don't want to stand up to the ever-present bad science getting pushed here. However, I believe WMC is better suited to fighting that battle than being an Arb. I suspect you would be spending your time locked in a battle and not able to address issues. King Pickle (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only candidate I've opposed. As above: Lacks the temperament and the skills to be a competent arbitrator. Has a history of tool misuse, personal attacks, and conflicts of interest.  Losing your job as administrator does not deserve a promotion to the arbitration committee.--Michael C. Price talk 12:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose and Comment - WMC removed this question from his questions page. He may choose not to answer if he thinks they are invalid, but removing the questions is disruptive and not becoming of an arbcom candidate. He will be questioned frequently if he is elected, and frequently from those who oppose his decisions; if he cannot tolerate such questioning, then he doesn't belong on this committee. I also have several other concerns about WMC (incivility, COI editing, his tendency of escalating rather than calming disputes) on the talk page, with diffs. ATren (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh  07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Committed and expert, but is uncivil, disingenuous, cynical and games the system. As is the case with manure, he is good for the environment but bad for Wikipedia.Dduff442 (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage. Skomorokh  07:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose strongly. Continual edits at climate change articles which show some pattern of WP:OWN. Within the boundaries of acceptable editing and behaviors, he shows a marked tendency to uphold one set of edits and views, and to preclude a whole variety of sources. I am voting against his candidacy for being an arbitrator.

Also, based on the following Arbcom finding: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Abstain with comments - My disputes have not been resolved by this candidate (see my talk). I shall abstain from voting on him and continue reasonable efforts for peaceful resolution. I will review and vote for a slate of other candidates. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, brief comments are basically campaign ads, so here you go: 30-Second SpotParody ; seriousness in the discussion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I always respected William's judgement in the 3rr noticeboard, his desysopping, along with the answers towards the questions makes me Oppose Secret account 19:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to not that WMC has been one of the most thoughtful administrators the project ever had - regardless of my agreement or disagreement with him (I believe he blocked me once). In my time here I have seen several generations of admins get endorsed and retire so "ever" is not a light statement.  Because of this, I strongly support him on Arbcom. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Oppose - Concerns over related ArbCom case and conduct. See User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - In my experience, he does not actually support wikipedia standards of Neutrality. In fact, he can be both brilliant and ferocious in rejection of anything contrary to his views, which to me is far worse than simply having a POV to push.--Blue Tie (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - he is one of the good guys, fighting pseudoscience. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 00:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not even pretending to be interested in neutrality and has always struck me as unfriendly to others who do not share his views. Grace Note (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)