Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley


 * This nomination discussion is over, and any comments regarding it should be directed to the talk page. Please do not edit this page. Thank you

William M. Connolley
Final (67/29/5) ending 13:48 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Outcome
No consensus. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

See talk.

Nomination
William is an extremely polite, helpful and knowledgeable editor. He has been here since February 2003 and has accumulated over 7200 edits. William is a climate modeller and contributes primarily to those areas in which he can claim expert knowledge - global climate and physics, and he has worked hard to substantially improve these articles. This has brought him into conflict with other editors - conflicts which have resulted in an RFC and an RFAr - but despite repeated personal attacks from other editors, William has shown himself to be cool under fire and emerged from both of these disputes looking like someone who would make an excellent admin. William works well with other editors and makes extensive use of edit summaries. He works hard to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia by keeping its content in line with established scientific ideas - be it in the area of climate change or aetherometry. I have no hesitation in nominating William for adminship. Guettarda 7 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)


 * I am honoured to accept. William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 15:53:28 (UTC).

Support


 * 1) Without a doubt. Guettarda 7 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. He wasn't perfect in the dispute but everything I read that he wrote showed that he was editing in the best of faith and putting up with a lot of abuse for it. - Taxman Talk July 7, 2005 14:59 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.  I agree with Taxman &mdash; but no-one's perfect in a dispute (I'm certainly not). --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 7 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I trust Ed Poor will also cast a positive vote, despite his differences. After all, "it's no big deal". -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)
 * 5) *I will not; it is a big deal, in this case (see talk). Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 17:16 (UTC)
 * 6) *I changed my vote to neutral (see below). Uncle Ed July 9, 2005 13:16 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. He has made a strong contribution to Wikipedia.  He is even-handed and aware of his own POV, invaluable qualities in an admin.  Sunray July 7, 2005 16:26 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Ambi 7 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
 * 9) Support-JCarriker July 7, 2005 17:41 (UTC)
 * 10) Absolutely &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 7 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)
 * 11) Support; I've admired his work for a while now and I think he'd be an excellent admin. Antandrus (talk) 7 July 2005 20:43 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. His contributions speak for themselves and while he can get heated when dealing with the POV pushers on climate change articles, that demonstrates his humanity and I for one think 'there but for the grace of god go I'. David | Talk 7 July 2005 21:11 (UTC)
 * 13) *The problem is that he himself is a POV pusher. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 17:18 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. His "faults" seem only normal to me, and I think he edits in good faith and would not do anything but good with administrator abilities. --Fastfission 7 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. El_C 7 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Read userpage, RfA, RfC. A user who has had problems in controversial subjects he actually knows about and tends to draw...um...alternative viewpoints.  Seems logical, and recognizes adminship requires him to be restrained in these areas. Wikibofh 8 July 2005 00:06 (UTC)
 * 17) I shall support. Denelson83 8 July 2005 00:42 (UTC)
 * 18) Support! William is a scientist and a strong defender of a group of controversial science topics that have been under attack by POV pushing skeptics and pseudoscience believers. Wikipedia needs more expert editors and administrators who understand science. Given that, he also understands that admin. powers are not to be used to win arguements and disputes as he noted below. -Vsmith 8 July 2005 00:52 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Ghakko 8 July 2005 04:32 (UTC)
 * 20) support, with my thanks for putting up with WP, great and tedious as it is. dab (&#5839;) 8 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Seems like a fine user. Also, I cannot see how the William Connolley article can be described as a vanity page. Sjakkalle (Check!)  8 July 2005 09:10 (UTC)
 * 22) Support.  Grue  8 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. W&L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.104.2.52 (talk • contribs) 09:48, July 8, 2005
 * 24) Support Stewart Adcock 8 July 2005 14:37 (UTC)
 * 25) Support - I am utterly amazed that defending the consensus on climate change is grounds for opposing him. Secretlondon 8 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)
 * 26) *"Defending the consensus" isn't being neutral: it's endorsing a POV. I can't believe this isn't evident to you. Wikipedia should not endorse any point of view, even that of 2/3 or 3/4 of the world's scientists. We don't even endorse evolution, and that enjoys 95% support, if the poll The Cunctator and I agreed upon is correct. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 17:13 (UTC)
 * 27) Support --Pjacobi July 8, 2005 18:04 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. Avoiding conflict when dealing with a topic like global warming over a long period of time is almost impossible, so that there have been some conflicts should not in itself be a criterion of exclusion. Conflict avoidance is a valid strategy, but if all good users avoided conflicts, then any aggressive user who wants to promote a certain ideology could easily do so. I don't believe William is likely to abuse his sysop privileges (nor that, if he did, it would actually help him), I do think he now understands and will try to follow 3RR, and I get the impression that his behavior is generally reasonable and sane, if perhaps a bit confrontational. I do believe William genuinely understands his edits to be a valid interpretation of NPOV policy, particularly the section on pseudoscience, with its remarks on proportional representation and clear attribution. I don't think a disagreement among reasonable people over what is and isn't NPOV can or should be grounds for denying adminship. I will apply the same standard to people from the opposite point of view, of course. I will reconsider my vote if someone shows me recent abusive comments or edits which are otherwise in clear violation of policy.--Eloquence* July 8, 2005 18:15 (UTC)
 * 29) Moved from neutral to support.  Dragons flight July 8, 2005 18:35 (UTC)  See comments section below.
 * 30) Support. Wikipedia is a learning process for all of us and it'll likely be helpful to have one more admin who can recognize a pseudo-science on sight (even if a couple of months ago I did walk away from a conversation with a UN specialist on global warming that left me rather less convinced they've shown a correlation... although CO2 emissions should be cut anyway IMO). Wyss 8 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Neutralitytalk July 8, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. &mdash;Stormie July 8, 2005 22:40 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. NoPuzzleStranger July 9, 2005 00:44 (UTC)
 * 34) To paraphrase previous voters: NPOV does not mean all POVs should necessarily be given equal time, and William has done a good job of keeping our climate articles grounded in reason. Furthermore, I have absolutely no cause to believe he would abuse his admin powers. -- Hadal 9 July 2005 09:51 (UTC)
 * 35) Cool. JuntungWu 9 July 2005 10:19 (UTC). To elaborate further, I agree with Eloquence. JuntungWu 05:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. James F. (talk) 9 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. Looking at the evidence here and in the RFC and RFAr, he does sometimes get overheated, but not unacceptably so as far as I have seen. I also did not find him pushing his POV too much, noting that on a scientific issue, the opinion of the majority of scientists should be given prominence. I trust he'll not use his admin privileges to settle wars on climate change. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 9 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)
 * 38) Support, although somewhat hesitantly. Whilst I support his contributions and efforts, I fear that his having sysop abilities would generate antipathy and unwarranted controversy, and perhaps even lead to his downfall - which would be most unfortunate. However, I'm willing to take a chance.--[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]]  Cyberjunkie   TALK  9 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. Simply, I trust him. Dan100 (Talk) 21:16, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. A polite editor who continues to make good use of edit summaries and respects the 3RR. I don't there will be abuse, in any case. -- Natalinasmpf 06:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * For the sake of accuracy, it must be mentioned that WMC has been blocked for 3RR violations 4 times in the past 3 months . Carbonite | Talk 14:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Carbonite's point, above, doesn't sway me because on a couple of occasions Connolley was consciously trying to avoid the 3RR.  Some of the reasons given below for opposing his candidacy &mdash; well, they either puzzle or disappoint me.  That some may consider his user-page a "vanity" page is just silly.  People put all sorts of things on their user pages, and shouldn't be limited to pictures of dogs and quotes from Hermann Hesse or Buckminster Fuller.  More importantly, Connolley did not come to Wikipedia in order to promote himself (e.g. through his user page); he has been an active contributor to articles covering topics he has knowledge of.  Isn't this the character of the ideal wikipedian?  Has he been in edit-disputes?  How many people here have not?  I actually think there is something at stake here.  We all want wikipedia to be open to all users, meaning, one need not have a PhD. in anthropology to write on an anthropological topic.  No one has ever disputed this.  But some people interpret this to mean that people who actually have demonstrable knowledge of an area should somehow be penalized for contributing to Wikipedia.  My vote is not only for Connolley, it is against those people who hate having their cherished views challenged by someone who knows more than they do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the allegations of vanity (which are completely unfounded) were made with regards to the William Connolley article, not WMC's user-page.--[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]] Cyberjunkie   TALK  16:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification.Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not that there's anything wrong with pictures of dogs. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Heaven forbid! (well, except when they are playing poker.)Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support even without answer to question below. Real academic expertise here needs to be encouraged. It is all to easy to wonder why we are bothering to argue with the ignorant over issues of fact (as opposed to opinion). alteripse 03:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)(yes, sorry, thanks for adding my sig — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alteripse (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 July 2005 diff)
 * 2) Support. He's trying to uphold encyclopedic standards. That's bound to lead to conflict, sadly. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) yep i'm not sure why his scientific expertise is relevant to adminship, though we desperately need more editors like that. however, i do agree with slim that the conflicts on the climate change articles should not be held against him.  i support, since he seems to me a mature & trustworthy editor who will use adminship judiciously. Derex 17:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support As with many expert editors WMC showed less patience that many would like, but has over time raised the quality of articles and participation. The "One Revert" agreement which he participates in is an example of the kind of creative use of wiki methods to produce better articles. Stirling Newberry 18:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good contributor. Jonathunder 19:33, 2005 July 10 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. A long history of conflict, but that's regrettably inevitable when one works in a controversial area. - SimonP 19:59, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. It's a great plus having expert contributors, not to say that experts are necessarily always correct, but certainly it raises the level of content and discussion in the areas of contribution. Since William M. Connolley's edits demonstrate collaboration with other editors even in contentious areas, I feel confident he'll be a good admin. -- M P er el ( talk 23:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, it's a big advantage for an admin to have experience of editing in high-conflict areas and to have shown that he can stand the heat. I've held off voting for a few days to see if anybody's going to provide diffs showing actual examples of any the accusations made against the candidate, but it's not looking like it. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. I don't believe he was completely cool under fire, but then again, he was getting a hell of lot of it whilst trying to uphold standards. --Calton | Talk 02:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. As a scientist who years ago retreated from the newsgroup sci.environment under the increasingly shrill barrage of anti-intellectual junk from both flanks of the greenhouse debate, I always admired WMC for being one of a tiny handful who calmly hung in there and presented the scientific perspective. sci.env became unreadable, and it is largely to WMC's credit that the same has not happened to the climate-related pages here.  That he has attracted conflict is no great surprise, rather it is impressive that so little of it has followed him here. Actinide 04:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. He can handle it. -Willmcw 06:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Level-headed and a staunch voice for science as opposed to pseudoscientific claims.  Kaibabsquirrel 15:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Linzer2002 16:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note:User's first edit. Carbonite | Talk 16:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Salsb 16:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Right-wing pseudo-science needs to be checked; we're not a conduit for corporate climate lobbyism. Peter Isotalo 17:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. CDThieme 18:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Absolutely Snowspinner 19:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. A knowledgeable, effective contributor who'd be an asset with the tools. Shem(talk) 21:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, Wikipedia needs such knowledgeable people not only as editors but to perform admin functions as well.-gadfium 00:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. G8 was listening, world. :-) Ancheta Wis 06:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Changing my vote. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) 09:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. --TimLambert 16:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Anyone who has the experience and knowledge to spot pseudo-science absolutely needs the mop and bucket.  It only adds to Wikipedia's credibility. - Lucky 6.9 00:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Unflinching commitment to protecting the accuracy of controversial scientific articles is exactly what we should be looking for in administrators. RadicalSubversiv E 06:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - deserves community recognition for editing in the teeth of silly attitudes, and the worst thing I know about him is thaty he once said I played go like a Pascal programmer. Charles Matthews 10:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support - commendable work attempting to maintain NPOV on climate change and global warming articles. If we oppose nomination for bias then we should similarly remove adminship from a variety of admins. Axon 13:30, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Handy guy I must say. Redwolf24 13:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --Duk 06:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - WMC is an intelligent guy who will not, I'm sure, abuse admin powers. &mdash;Morven 07:48, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - one of the most knowledgeable Wikipedians I know mkrohn 09:07, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oppose


 * 1) I oppose on the basis that I do not feel that he has demonstrated extremely poor Wikiquette with regard to his vanity page at William Connolley, created by User:Ed Poor in order to further their position (which I nevertheless agree wholehearted with) on global environment change. Dunc|&#9786; 7 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)
 * Correction: it's not a vanity page, because Dr. Connolley is "notable" in the climate field. Uncle Ed 00:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) * Comment: Dunc seems to be a bit obsessed by this page. Its not a vanity page, I didn't create it, and the idea that Ed and I were working in concert for "their position" is absurd to anyone familiar with the history of the Global Warming Wars. We were opposed Dunc - whilst remaining friends. William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 20:30:35 (UTC).
 * 2) ** Well this gets even more bizarre. So, it was created by Ed Poor, who is already an admin and ought to have known better, about his mate with whom he was edit warring.  Still, presumably to make some point.  I agree with William's position on GEC.  Nevertheless, I still think William ought to have shown a little more humility, and don't think he should be promoted. Dunc|&#9786; 7 July 2005 20:41 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict.) I agree that it's not a good reason for opposing, even apart from W.M.C.'s response. A number of Wikipedians are the subjects of articles, and I don't see anything non-Wikiquette in that.  Moreover W.M.C. is well-known outside Wikipedia, and to call the article vanity would be difficult to defend. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 7 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
 * 1) * The fact that I can be friends with someone I disagree with, is perhaps to my credit, but that doesn't mean Connolley is capable of upholding the NPOV policy of this web site. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 17:20 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose because he allows his POV to damage Wikipedia.  There will be fewer limits on his behavior, as a minimum on his shown reversion behavior.  He deletes material which conflicts with his beliefs and participates in ad hominem attacks.    As he mentioned, he is currently slashing Global warming and removing material which contradicts his beliefs.  For example, over an hour ago he cut two paragraphs about problems computer simulations with an edit comment "Climate models - (potentially controversial) remove two paras, on the grounds that solar and clouds are already mentioned, and detail is not needed here - should be in GCM article." but he failed to move the paragraphs to the GCM article.  He has used the same burn-instead-of-move method before. (SEWilco 7 July 2005 21:25 (UTC))
 * SEW is too modest. He neglects to mention his own extensive participation in the RFA here. I strongly resent There will be fewer limits on his behavior: as I've specifically indicated in my response to DF's question, I have no intention of using admin powers for winning disputes on the GW pages. As for his complaints... as he is obliged to admit, I specifically marked that edit as controversial, to alert people to the need to review it. And note that SEW appears to agree with my edit, in that he has moved the text into climate model rather than arguing for its re-insertion into GW. I could go on, but its clear that I will never be loved by the skeptics. William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 22:13:33 (UTC).
 * WMC interprets as approval of his behavior the preservation of text in a random place, rather than its being replaced where he flung it from. I haven't tried to interpret the details of his thrashing in Global warming, much less approve anything. (SEWilco 8 July 2005 08:33 (UTC))
 * 1) I agree with many of Ed Poor's points [Note: now in the neutral section, below]. In short, although I think WMC is an excellent editor, there's far too much conflict surrounding him. Looking over his recent contributions, there are numerous reverts, accusations of POV or "junk science", and rather snide edit summaries. Carbonite | Talk 8 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose. WMC is rude, condescending, shows no respect for NPOV, and has demonstrated no desire or ability to cooperate with others to build a neutral encyclopedia reflecting various perspectives.  He is one of the worst candidates I could imagine for adminship.  He is already on a revert parole (a fairly mild treatment, considering the events) for these behaviors, and you want to give him adminship?     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 9 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, does not support NPOV. Fred Bauder July 9, 2005 13:23 (UTC)
 * The arbcomm disagrees with you William M. Connolley 2005-07-09 18:56:52 (UTC)
 * 1) Let's wait a few months. -- Netoholic @ 9 July 2005 17:55 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Too many issues. POV warring on Climate Change, and anti-Tesla bais over at Nikola Tesla. I'm sure WMC is a good editor otherwise, but why does he need admin powers? Klonimus 07:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose edits too much in the area in which he is professionally involved - i.e. issues around original research. If most of his substantial editing was in neutrally reporting/expounding the views of people other than himself as to what matters are on subjects other than the ones in which he has a professional/ideological involvement, I would have no objection.      20:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It isn't "original research" if you have published it elsewhere. Experts getting involved in subjects of which they are experts is good for Wikipedia and helps our credibility immensely.  Our credibility ishurt by the perception that we are all just a bunch of rank amateurs who don't know what we are talking about.  Apart from the fact that this has little to do with WMC's ability to serve as an admin, it's extremely disturbing that expertice should be held against a person.  Guettarda 20:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I am unwilling to trust someone with adminship if they are liable to work in areas where they have strong views. I prefer people who are extremely clearly neutral.     22:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While you are, of course, entitled to your opinion, I find it disturbing that you would express opposition on the grounds that WMC knows what he is talking about. Having strong views on keeping information in Wikipedia accurate is to be commended, not criticised.  Do you avoid editing article about comparative linguistics on the grounds that you are too close to the subject?  Your edit history suggests otherwise.  Guettarda 22:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Guettarda, don't get so worked up. I think this was meant as satire. Right? Derex 19:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Facethefacts 23:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC) See Michael Mann (scientist), history of that page and Talk:Michael Mann (scientist) to see that he aims for censorship. There is every reason to suppose that he would use admin powers to support his POV. (Yes, I am the other side of that edit war with about 15 edits on the article and 15 on the talk page. No, I don't like signing in.)
 * Note, this editor's first edit was on July 9 with only four edits prior to this vote. Two of those edits were to redirect both his user page and talk page to Talk:Michael Mann (scientist). Thus, he would appear to be essentially an anonymous editor with questionable motives. Vsmith 00:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact (if you read what I said above) the first was on 31 May and I had made about 34 edits. But never mind. 22:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, unless I misunderstand his RfAr finished about 2-3 weeks ago, and resulted in parole, which period has barely begun. Given the amount of thunder and lightning surrounding the user at present, I think perhaps try again after the effects of teh RfAr have died away and there's been a period of reasonably equanimous interactions. -Splash 23:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Still under penalty from the ArbCom.  May support once the revert parole ends. --Carnildo 23:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. No way should an editor who had to be put under revert parole be given the capability to roll back edits, no matter what he promises. If he had shown the good faith then that it requires to believe him now, he never would have needed the censure in the first place. Among other reasons, as stated. Grace Note 01:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The right thing to do while under revert parole would have been to decline the nomination, and ask the nominator to consider it again later.  Accepting the nomination shows unwillingness to put one's own interests aside temporarily for the greater good of the project, or oversight of a greater obligation that should be obvious to admin candidates.  This is further evidenced by the fact that the RfAr case was primarily about revert warring.  Had this been an RfC, I would not feel so strongly about it, because any two editors could then filibuster any potential administrator candidate.  But since RfAr cases are much more rare, and accepted RfAr cases are even more rare, the correct path was to decline the nomination.  We cannot demand that admins hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than the general editing public, but I will certainly request them to do so.  Unfocused 03:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Needs to show more balance. --Audiovideo 07:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose If he applies to the ArbCom to have his reverting-rigths restored I will consider (and probably do) support, but giving rollback to a guy under reverting-parole.....well....doesn't matter how great a user he is, that just doesn't sit right with me. gkhan 13:36, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. WMC certainly looks like a knowledgeable contributor in the area that he edits, but his censure by the Arbcom can't be ignored at this time.  His defense on the arbitration page was to go to his credentials, which, though they may uphold the veracity of his edits, do not excuse his violation of revert rules and disregard for wiki procedures.  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 14:37, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I know nothing about this editor's history, as we never frequent the same articles, and I havn't been doing RC patrol recently, and never ran into him there. I understand however, that he is under ArbCom sanction at the moment, so I am forced to vote oppose, I cannot in good concience allow someone currently under sanction to gain adminship.--Tznkai 16:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose I have no particular axe to grind with him on global warming, but I had the unpleasant experience of being involved in a reversion war with him on what would normally be a relatively dry, non-controversial topic: the Roche Limit. He violated the Three-revert_rule by readding the word "orbiting" to a figure on the Roche Limit page four times in one 24-hour period, at 21:53, 2 September 2004, 22:10, 2 September 2004, 08:46, 3 September 2004, and 16:50, 3 September 2004.  I followed the 3RR and waited, posting to discussion, before reverting a fourth time at 02:04, 5 September 2004.  A third party, Doradus, requested that we both stop the revert war at 02:27, 5 September 2004.  William M. Connolley then ignored this request and reverted a fifth time at 09:40, 5 September 2004.  Rather than defend his view in talk thereafter, as would be appropriate under the circumstances, he simply stopped responding on the talk page after a web reference to the original source was found and quoted on the archived discussion page at 16:56, 8 September 2004.  Both the page and the talk page were dormant after my post to the talk page from 9 September to 12 October 2004, in spite of the assurance that the dispute would be resolved in discussion- much to my frustration.  As (unlike him) I honored the cease reversion request, the page was to his liking and so he felt no need to justify his actions on the talk page.   He violated the 3RR rule, then he violated a cease reversion request, and he didn't even bother to respond on talk about the subject.  I do not think that someone who behaves in that manner is an appropriate choice for an administrator role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Noren (talk • contribs) 22:52, July 11, 2005
 * Please note that looking through the page history at WP:3RR, that the 3RR was nothing more than a guideline at this time, and as a guideline it had existed for less than three weeks. Guettarda 13:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is false. Please see in How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version that at as of 17:23, 14 March 2004 the 3RR was an enforcable offense, though it is true that it was officially phrased as 'the same day' rather than 'period of 24 hours' until august. --Noren 01:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is not what How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version said at the time - in September 2004 it spoke of a three revert "guideline" that is "enforced" through peer pressure and the like. Your comments are misleading.  Guettarda 01:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here, and you appear to be mixing up the timeframes on the two pages. To clarify: your claim that "as a guideline it had existed for less than three weeks." as of september 2004 was shown to be false by the 17:23, 14 March 2004 revision of How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version- partly a result of this poll.  Please retract that false statement.
 * Your second issue, questioning the status of enforcement as the time- as of september 2004 the "How_to_revert..." page had only a summary but linked to the newly created WP:3RR page, which at the time was on a page titled "Wikipedia:Three-revert rule " and said within its enforcement section, "In extreme cases, investigation by the arbitration committee, which may lead to any number of responses." (This phrase also occurs, omitting the word number, in the 14 March page above).  While William M. Connolly's edits here may not qualify as an extreme case, I believe my statement that the 3RR was itself an enforcable offense at the time was not misleading. On the other hand, I believe that your claim it was called only a three revert "guideline" at the time is misleading. --Noren 05:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I do not believe that it would be right for someone who is under probation to become a sysop.  -- JamesTeterenko 03:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. I've never had any contact with this user, but since he's had an RfAr against him and gotten revert parole, and a lot of his edits are tied to his work, allowing him to be an admin is asking for trouble. --Idont Havaname 00:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume that you have read the ArbComm case and you agree with the idea of giving people revert parole in the absence of Findings_of_Fact against them? Guettarda 13:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I don't like the idea of someone on probation becoming an admin. After the probation period is up, I would consider lending my support. Columbia 17:04, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) That's so not hot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:55, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I'm not in favor of giving the rollback button to someone who is still under Arbcom censure for having engaged in edit wars and inappropriate reverts.  Once the parole is up, or Arbcom lifts the parole, I'll reconsider.  Kelly Martin 17:58, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Being an 'active' contributor I would see possible conflicts of interest if he would be an admin too. --R.Koot 20:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I am truly baffled. Did I miss the memo?  I thought that the whole point of Wikipedia was to be an encyclopaedia, and that sysop powers were meant to make editing easier for trusted users?  When did actually doing the thing we are supposed to be doing here become a bad thing?  Guettarda 20:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Since when is being an active contributor a disqualification for being an admin? As noted above, doesn't this miss the point altogether? Aren't we here to write articles? Wyss 21:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't need to be an admin to edit. The 'active' implied some irony, because the person in question here has been in edit wars and is currently on probation. --R.Koot 23:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:14, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, user is on probation. Dmn / &#1332;&#1396;&#1398; 23:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Excellent contributions to Wikipedia, admirable outcomes in regards to climate change. Seems to be tireless, understands the importance of sources, and can spell. All of these things make excellent editors.  However
 * His certainty about his view causes him to abandon NPOV (see this).
 * He feels free in making large reverts that are "irrelevant" (see this).
 * My reservations regarding this nominee were cemented by
 * His alteration of another editor's VfD vote here.
 * His arbitrary removal of a "spurious" nomination to VfD here.
 * The fact that in all of these instances I agree with him is irrelevant. If, as a standard user, WMC is happy to remove a VfD tag instead of completing the nomination and voting oppose as is the common practice, he is clearly not an acceptable administrator.  brenneman (t) (c)  03:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Acts too controversially to be given admin powers.Borisblue 06:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, evidently has issues with Wikipedia policy, which is not a good quality for an Administrator.--nixie 07:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) Neutral until questions have been answered. Also, could someone provide a link to the RfC and RfAR? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk  7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)
 * Still neutral until further consideration. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 8 July 2005 21:23 (UTC)
 * Still neutral after consideration. While I do think that William M. Connolley is a great Wikipedian who has made a plethora of quality edits, there is too much controversy right now regarding the Global Warming debate. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 9 July 2005 02:52 (UTC)


 * # Oppose. I think William M. Connolley was largely justified in his global warming actions, and even in the tone of his comments, given the provocation. However, he did violate the 3RR rule, which in my opinion is non-negotiable.  Don't od it yourself, bring in independent editors to support you so that things are all clearly above board.  His failure to do this makes me question his judgement to some extent, and since we don't have a reliable way of removing admins, I can't in good conscience ignore it. A good contributer, but I'm afraid I cannot support. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 22:20 (UTC)
 * 1) Switched to neutral, thanks to the 3RR case clarification provided to me by Guettarda. I'm still leery, for a number of minor reasons, of supporting, but I won't oppose either.--Scimitar 7 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)
 * # Neutral, I am leery about his POV. -- M e r o v i n g i a n  (t) (c) July 8, 2005 08:08 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral I am not at all leery about his POV. I commend anyone who is willing to push back against pseudoscience and quackery - even if he got some 3RR doing so. If that was his only sin, I'd support without question. That he seems to be willing to edit war over such minutae as to whether dab pages should be case sensitive   gives me serious pause to question what he would do as an admin. SchmuckyTheCat 8 July 2005 15:56 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Neutral. (A) Dr. C. is constantly pushing the United Nations' POV on global warming while dismissing as "pseudoscience" all findings which contradict the UN - even those published in peer-reviewed journals. (B) He is perennially in conflict with other editors. (C) He has reverted innumerable changes to climate articles, on the ground that those changes were "vandalism" - simply because he didn't want to allow the POV which those changes accurately and fairly to described, to be in the article. Giving him the "rollback" feature, which he intends to use to do this more easily, would not help Wikipedia's NPOV policy. (Don't get me wrong, I'm still honored by the presence of a bona fide scientist at Wikipedia, and Dr. C. is much more polite than the average contributor. And I trust him to move or correct my edit comments; I had forgotten how helpful that can be :-) Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 13:56 (UTC)
 * (A) I regard Eds viewing of the std.consensus as the "UN" position as black helicopters stuff. We disagree on that, of course. I don't think I've ever dismissed any cl ch stuff as psuedoscience, though. Some (S+B; Singer) is definitely junk science, though (B) I edit a lot in the climate change areas, and the psuedoscience areas. These see a lot of POV-pushing, conflict is (sadly) inevitable (C) This is simply wrong. I have never reverted any good faith edits as vandalism (go on, produce one), and haven't used that tag in the edit wars. Asserting that I would use rollback, when I've said very clearly I won't, is rather off, Ed. William M. Connolley 2005-07-08 14:13:25 (UTC).
 * 1) Neutral. I'm not really convinced his POV is the problem, and he's shown himself to be both qualified and courteous. However, I'm concerned about several things that SchmuckyTheCat brought up, and I'm fearful that the nominee is a little too confrontational in his approach (though not combatative!). Given my lack of personal experience with the nom, which is how I would generally resolve my own uncertainty in situations such as these, I'm sitting on the fence here. – Seancdaug 05:03, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comments


 * WMC has 7,291 edits. 3844 to articles, 1751 to talk, 282 to user, 471 to user talk, 475 to Wikipedia, 143 to Wikipedia talk, 307 to images, 11 to image talk, 1 to templates, 3 to categories and 3 to category talk
 * As requested by Flcelloguy: RFC; RFAr. Guettarda 7 July 2005 16:24 (UTC)
 * Though less relevant to the question, WMC was also the initiator of an earlier RFAr vs. JonGwynne. No actions or findings were taken against WMC.  Dragons flight July 7, 2005 16:56 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this. While, adminship is "no big deal", it is also at least something more than a pat on the back for frequent contributors.  As Guettarda says in his nomination, WMC spends a lot of time trying to confront pseudoscience that others try to introduce into Wikipedia in places like global warming, climate change, aetherometry, dynamic theory of gravity, and solar greenhouse (technical).  This is a good thing, but it does mean he is involved in far more conflicts that a typical editor.  In many cases, he handles this well, but there are also multiple examples of revert wars and 3RR violations (see RFAr findings).  I worry that WMC may use admin tools or apparent authority as a club in his conflicts.  However, if he explains his intentions, and expresses a willingness to avoid using adminship as a weapon in his own conflicts, I am likely to support this nomination.  Dragons flight July 7, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that admins aren't allowed to use their powers to enforce their edits, and I certainly don't intend to. I'd be particularly careful over the climate change pages. As to 3RR: yes, I've been guilty, though never deliberately. I strongly support the 3RR being strictly enforced for everyone, including me. Happily I seem to have lost the habit of being banned recently and intend to continue that way. William M. Connolley 2005-07-07 18:13:35 (UTC).
 * Based on WMC's comments here and also his specific statement to Ed (above) about not misusing rollback, I am going to change my vote to support. To be honest I do still have some reservations about this because of the way WMC courts conflict; however, in the course of my many dealings with him, I have always seen him to act honestly (even if somewhat stubbornly and aggressively at times).  So I have decided to take him at his word that he won't abuse admin priviledges.  Dragons flight July 8, 2005 18:35 (UTC)
 * It's not true that Dr. Connolley is "cool under fire". More than almost any contributor I can think of, he has engaged in heated edit wars in the climate articles. If it were not for me carrying him through all this, cooling him down with humor and what Stevertigo calls my "smooth vibe", he'd have been banned long ago. Making him an admin would endorse his flouting of Wikipedia rules. In this special case, it would be a big deal. There are hardly any established scientific ideas which Dr. Connolley keeps Wikipedia in line with, other than minor things like the movement of air (wind) or water (ocean currents). He falsely claims that the United Nations' ideas about global warming are facts, ignoring all scientific analyses to the contrary. Uncle Ed July 8, 2005 14:19 (UTC)
 * Several editors have used the ArbComm decision as grounds to vote against the nomination. This is despite the fact that none of the Findings_of_Fact found any wrongdoings on the part of WMC.  WMC was placed on revert parole in the absence of any findings of fact against him.  In addition, the idea that this was simply a revert war between two parties was intensified by the threat issued by the ArbComm  to include other people involved in the edit dispute - this forced other editors to avoid the dispute for fear of being named party to the ArbComm case.  Guettarda 04:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to respond to Guettardas statement at the top of the page which says that the arbcom case is irrelevant to this RfA. I would first off like to say that even though that they did not find any breach of policy they did find signs of poor reverting behavior (findings of fact #2 i believe). But this is really irrelevant since it is not up to us here to question the findings of the arbcom. The arbcom, the supreme "judicial" authourity (exepting Monsieur Wales naturally) decided that he had shown very poor judgement in reverting behaviour. This decision should be respected. If you don't agree with their decision, then vote support, but it is certainly relevant to this RfA. gkhan 13:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Users considering this to be important may also wish to consider that two ArbCom members (Ambi & Neutrality) have currently voted in support. One member is currently opposed (Fred Bauder).  Other members have not presently voted.  Dragons flight 14:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * As of 01:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC), William M. Connolley has 75 percent support. What's the required level of support to be considered as "consensus"? Is it 80 percent? --Denelson83
 * Usually, yes, though in close cases Bureaucrats will exercise their judgement (e.g. by carefully weighing the reasonings given). Note that a count before the close of the RfA is not particularly meaningful when it is close. -Splash 03:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
 * When I look at at 01:50, 13 July 2005, I see 60 support, 20 oppose, and four neutral. That's 71%. Not that that matters, of course. brenneman (t) (c)  03:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Continuing in the way of things that don't matter, I just want to mention that the rules for RFA say: "You may also cast a neutral vote, which will not be tabulated in the final calculations" (emphasis added). Dragons flight 04:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
 * A. I used to watch recent changes a lot, and I expect to go back to doing this. The climate change pages require regular watching to remove minor vandalism, and having a rollback button would make this easier. As to the rest... I'm online a lot, and expect to feel my way into being helpful on the 3RR watch and suchlike matters.
 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I've contributed heavily to global warming and related articles. From a scientific viewpoint, many of these are now good. From a flow-of-prose viewpoint they have suffered from being fought over, and now those conflicts have died down we're in the process of improving them, beginning with GW and hoping to make it suitable for featured status. Less controversially, I'm proud of my two feautured pictures and a number of Computer-generated images.
 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A. I've been heavily involved with conflicts, in two main areas (as noted by DF above): global warming (see-also Requests for comment/William M. Connolley, Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne, Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute) and pseudoscience (aetherometry, dynamic theory of gravity, etc). At the moment I think that wiki really doesn't have a good mechanism for dealing with these problems (when people have a very strong and essentially erroneous POV they wish to push, but only a small number of editors are prepared/available to resist). But I've learnt from this that an endless revert war doesn't help; that its necessary to involve other editors and to negotiate. I can certainly claim a familiarity with the mechanism of RFC/RFA which, who knows, might prove useful elsewhere.

I am inclined to support. Although I didn't read the climate controversies. I suspect I've been involved in some parallel kinds of arguments. The challenge in presenting a controversial scientific topic for an encyclopedia is to be able to present the critics' or opponents' arguments so that a reader will understand why there is actually a controversy. Can you show me a couple of examples where you have done this? If so, I will enthusiastically support. alteripse 9 July 2005 10:20 (UTC)


 * Apologies - I missed this question. And it turns out to be rather hard for me to answer. I am obliged to offer this excuse: that the skeptics push in the critics views so hard, that I am usually cutting them back, rather than presenting them. It would be nice to be given a chance to present the critics views, but at the moment the skeptics are doing all that is needed and more. I guess I can poin to Sallie Baliunas (this diff ]) and Willie Soon (this diff ). William M. Connolley 21:49:30, 2005-07-12 (UTC).