Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Bishonen
I agree wholeheartedly with Irpen and others that the ArbCom has more urgent things to do, and needs to focus on solving the FT2 problem and answering the questions asked by the community re the IRC case. However, as it appears the committee would rather eat worms than focus on those issues, and as the case has in fact been accepted and involves a lot of people, I will try to help by addressing some specific points. In the interest of symmetry and the hope of conducing to clarity, I will refer to myself in the third person—"Bishonen".

Giano
Giano is sitting out a 49-hour block (P.S., just changed to 24 hours), and is presumably not of great interest to the ArbCom at this moment.

Criticism/praise appropriate to certain editors.
For fomenting drama by baiting Giano (an editor under civility parole), into breaking his parole, Avruch, as well as William M. Connolley, who came to Giano's page to taunt him while he was blocked, should be sanctioned or slapped with a trout. It is a terrible idea to bait an editor under civility parole. Please see the diffs in the Opposes to Avruch's recent unsuccessful RFA, which show him to have made something of a habit of that with respect to Giano. (That was the reason his RFA failed.) It's an equally terrible idea to go to the talkpage of an editor who is fuming under a block, and taunt him into fuming some more—and then block him some more for it, as William M. Connolley did. I think it's high time there was something about these destructive forms of drama-mongering in the policy, in WP:BLOCK. Tex, Bishonen, Thatcher and Geogre have all protested against such practices before, regarding other users (I mention this principled stand apropos of WMC's insinuation about "Giano's friends" always trying to overturn any sanctions imposed on him ), and they do so in this case as well: "Oh, come on William [Connolley]. You're sounding like you're talking to a child." "Do you have to come here to be offended? Is that some kind of compulsion"?? "Reblocking someone for being pissed off on their own talk page in response to a block is just about the most petty thing I can think of," " "I have a completely painless solution for people who feel that "incivility" has been here: DROP IT FROM YOUR WATCHLIST and ignore it. For being voices of sanity and moderation, Tex, Bishonen, Thatcher, and Geogre deserve a flower—say, a rose—on their pages, from the ArbCom. In the case of Bishonen, who is looking like an idiot for pompously exiting her "wikibreak" so as to post a "final message" from Giano on his "protected" page, immediately followed by a stream of fresh posts from Giano, I suggest modifying her reward into a trout bearing a rose in its mouth.

Geogre has not wheel-warred.
I will not go into the over-all wheel-warring thing, as I'm sure enough people will go to town with it, but I will query the notion that Geogre of all people was wheel-warring. (Feel free come discuss matter on Bishzilla page, Sir Fozzie. Sir Fozzie..? Come back here!) I have trouble shaking the notion that it's unnecessary, as the ArbCom is surely capable of reading Giano's log and Geogre's edits, but a timeline combining the two might still be useful. Here are all the block actions re Giano—William M. Connolley's, Geogre's and Avraham's—for July 1, UTC, combined with Geogre's edits during the same time:


 * 1) WMC block action 18:59, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment of other users)
 * 2) WMC block action 20:17, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (to extend block)
 * 3) WMC block action 20:20, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (repeated incivility)
 * 4) WMC block action 20:26, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (oh dear)
 * 5) WMC block action 20:27, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (re-repeated incivility)
 * 6) Geogre edit 21:01, 1 July 2008  User talk:Giano II‎ (→Talk page protection)
 * 7) Geogre unprotection action 21:02, 1 July 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Giano II‎ (Unprotected User talk:Giano II: Utter horse flop: we don't DO that. Don't watch shows that you don't like.)
 * 8) Geogre edit 21:05, 1 July 2008 User talk:Giano II‎ (→Civility block, again)
 * 9) Geogre block action 21:06, 1 July 2008 Geogre (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (unblock to change duration)
 * 10) Geogre edit 21:08, 1 July 2008  User talk:Giano II‎ (→Talk page protection)
 * 11) Geogre edit 21:10, 1 July 2008
 * 12) Avraham block action 21:11, 1 July 2008 Avraham (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 hour ‎ (Original 3 hour block set to expire in 1 hour)
 * 13) WMC block action 21:21, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" ‎ (to restore)
 * 14) WMC block action 21:21, 1 July 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Giano II (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (restoring valid civility block)

The salient events are those from 20:27 to 21:11. This is where WMC drastically lengthens his block; Geogre unprotects Giano's page; Geogre posts on Giano's page; Geogre unblocks Giano "to change duration"; Geogre posts again on Giano's page; and then Avraham blocks Giano for one hour, presenting Geogre with a fait accompli and providing the explanation that this is the original 3-hour block minus two hours for time already served. In other words: Avraham undoes William M. Connolley's taunt-then-block-some-more upping of the original block from from 3 (!) hours to 48 hours (!). I don't by any means consider Avraham to have been wheel-warring with WMC, but rather to be instating consensus (per Bishonen, Tex, Thatcher, and Geogre, as above) that WMC was wrong to add (twice!) to the block. Geogre then—surely reasonably, and expectably—chooses to leave Avraham's block in situ. Technically, then, Geogre merely unblocked (once)—but looking at the timeline, how can anybody suppose it was his intention to merely unblock? Is he supposed to have been LYING when he said "to change duration"? Apart from not being a notorious liar (or do you say he is, Sir Fozzie?)—if he was, would he be doing it in full view like that..? Sir Fozzie seems to think that this edit by Geogre somehow implies that he never meant to change the duration, but merely to unblock Giano and leave it at that. Because it says "block overturned"..? But please look at the timeline! Geogre posted that remark about WMC's 48-hour block (please read it, already), then unblocked to change duration; clearly he was going to overturn WMC's addition to his original block—not the whole of it. As it happened, though, Geogre never re-instated the original short block, because Avraham already had. Fozzie, you're either misreading or misinterpreting, I don't know which, but it's simply not logical to accuse Geogre of wheel-warring. (Especially when you don't accuse Avraham of anything—he is doing, in intention, the exact same thing as Geogre. Not that I think you should accuse him of anything.)
 * I'm sorry, I realize this evidence with all its timestamps is hard and displeasing to wrap your mind around, but if you have any notion that Geogre wheel-warred, please give it a chance,  Bishonen | talk 01:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC).

Arithmetical addendum, July 8. Stand on your head! 1 + 1 = 2.

 * "Time and again" stands for "twice" in David Fuchs' evidence: "Geogre has shown time and time again he is willing to unblock Giano ". Geogre unblocked Giano in the incident under discussion, July 1, 2008; Geogre unblocked Giano a year ago, on June 16, 2007. That's it.  1 + 1 = 2.
 * "Four" stands for "two" in David's evidence: "Bishonen, Tex, Thatcher, and Geogre...Giano's 'friends, 'for lack of a better word, do not consensus make". Two out of the four named users are actually Giano's friends. (Which of them? Stand on your head to see the correct answer here: əɹɓoəɓ puɐ uəuoɥsɪq.)  Bishonen | talk 08:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC).

Evidence presented by User:Stifle
I forget whether presenting evidence makes me a party, but if it does, then feel free to add me.

Wheel-warring
With reference to Bishonen's evidence above and to wheel warring, WP:WHEEL provides the following "possible indications" of wheel warring: The second definition would suggest that Geogre wheel warred (both by unprotecting Giano II's talk page and unblocking Giano II) and the fourth that William M. Connolley wheel warred (by reblocking Giano II). It would appear Avraham did not.
 * Administrators getting too distressed to discuss something.
 * An administrator undoes another administrator's actions without consultation.
 * An administrator deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents or Deletion review) and implements their own preferred action or version of an edit.
 * An administrative action is repeatedly performed and reversed (by anyone).

(Supporting evidence: Giano II's block log and protection log for Giano II's talk page)

Note
William M. Connolley has since reverted his own extension of the block and left it at approximately 24 hours from the original block. It has now expired.

Block removal did not have consensus
While I would prefer that this case stays on the strict scope as defined by the title, I do feel I need to respond to Bishonen's following statement: "I don't by any means consider Avraham to have been wheel-warring with WMC, but rather to be instating consensus (per Bishonen, Tex, Thatcher, and Geogre, as above) that WMC was wrong to add (twice!) to the block." Leaving aside the wheel-warring or possibility of none, or the right/wrong action of the block, the local discussion on Giano's talk page does not consensus make. Leaving behind all other evidence of wrongdoing, the block was not discussed and a consensus to unblock reached on Giano's talk page (or such a consensus shouldn't result in action). (talk: ) Admins thinking of extending a block (i.e. looks and smells punitive) as well as unblocking should go to WP-space channels and discuss. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Since Bish responded to my more rambling comments previosly, a diff to the original post: ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of events
Going back beyond the events slightly to give some context, but the events and diffs (all timings GMT) I have found so far are as follows (note that "starting a session of editing" does not say anything about off-wiki activity or whether someone has been reading Wikipedia before or after that time):
 * User:Giano II (hereafter Giano) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:11 (previous edit was at 10:30 earlier that day), with a series of seven edits to two separate talk page threads The relevant one here is the one titled FT2's head on a platter. Giano made two edits to this thread, at: 18:20 and 18:43. The thread in question should be read in full to get the full context of the comments.
 * User:William M. Connolley (hereafter WMC) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:57 (previous edit was at 06:39 earlier that day). He made one unrelated edit at 18:57, and then carried out a block of Giano at 18:59, followed by a notification of Giano at 19:00 informing him that the block was for Giano's 18:43 edit (see list above). WMC's next edit was over an hour later at 20:10, to add a note to a log someone else had made of that block. It is not clear how Giano's edit came to the attention of WMC.
 * User:Geogre (hereafter Geogre) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:50 (previous edit was at 13:47 earlier that day), with two unrelated edits at 18:50 and 18:51. The next edit (to Giano's talk page) came at 21:01, over two hours later. Geogre's two administrative actions were at 21:02 (page unprotection) and 21:06 (unblock of Giano "to change duration").
 * User:Avruch (hereafter Avruch) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:27 (previous edit was at 02:03 earlier that day), with an edit to the 'FT2's head on a platter' thread mentioned earlier. This edit was at 18:27. There was an unrelated edit at 18:33. Then, 40 minutes later, and 30 minutes after Giano's 18:43 edit in reply to his (Avruch's) 18:27 edit, Avruch opened an arbitration enforcement thread in a series of edits from 19:13 to 19:15. The thread mentioned the 18:43 edit that day, along with diffs for seven other edits by Giano, one an 18:11 diff from 1 July (mentioned above but not listed) and the other six being from 30 June 2008.
 * User:WJBscribe (hereafter WJBscribe) started a session of editing on 1 July 2008 at 18:30 (previous edit at 14:40 earlier that day). After a series of unrelated edits dealing with other matters, he reverted Giano's 18:43 edit on FT2's talk page, with an edit at 19:27, with the edit summary "let's not get personal...". He then warned Giano at 19:29, but then undid the warning two minutes later, having seen that others had already taken action. It is unclear here, also, how WJBscribe became aware of Giano's edit.
 * The above is background only, and should be read in the context of the discussions, lack of discussions, and actions that followed. For that, see the evidence presented by others elsewhere.

Discussions
Check page histories to ensure discussions are complete.
 * WP:AE IRC thread
 * ANI
 * WMC's talk page (1)
 * WMC's talk page (2)
 * Giano's talk page (1)
 * Giano's talk page (2)
 * Giano's talk page (3)
 * Giano's talk page (4)
 * Giano's talk page (5)

William M. Connolley was specifically notified, regarding increasing sanctions, of WP:RfAR/Tango
I commented per this diff that the above Admin should consider that their actions were contrary to findings of the ArbCom case brought against User:Tango. This was subsequent to a comment by User:Sarah777, expressing concern the same admin was unilaterally increasing the sanction. I am unaware if WMC acknowledged or was aware of either of these comments, or of the points being raised, but no response was indicated until WMC reset the block to the first extension tariff of 24 hours - but this time taking in account time already expired from the initial 3 hour block, which had also been discussed in the section including both above comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The ancient sport of beard pulling
When you stumble across people engaging in the ancient, hoary, and hairy sport of beard pulling, the proper response is to either let them keep going until neither has a hair on his chin or to restrain both persons' hands. You see, beard pulling is beard pulling, and if either party wins by using handcuffs, it's not fair, and if either wins by pulling a gun, it's not fair. Furthermore, if you want, as an observer, to stop the contest, you probably don't need a prison sentence. Thirty minutes is probably enough.

I saw that Giano was getting taunted and was taunting back. Ok. That's healthy for an ongoing discussion. However, one party came along to impose a drastic block on Giano, but none for fellow editor Avruch. That's neither fair nor appropriate nor according to policy. The fact that it was done in the laughable name of "civility," when the goofuses who invoke it neither seem to understand it nor can articulate it, only made it worse.

Wikipedia is a conversation surrounding a set of articles. Stopping the conversation is bad. Stopping it should take place only if the conversation is going to destroy people communicating. Conversations include invective. Wikipedia is not censored for content in its articles, and it should not be for Puritanical conversation, either. Thus, the block was against policy, was against ethics, and was disproportionately administered.

If you need, in the future, to stop people beard pulling (and you should really need to, not want to), then:
 * 1) get a third party (a true one)
 * 2) get someone dispassionate
 * 3) block both parties
 * 4) block for about an hour. It rarely takes more than that, because what you're blocking is an ongoing insult fest, not contributions of a user.

I saw one administrator behaving without sanction of policy, and I reversed it. The summary involved was wrong because I never had a chance to adjust the time. William M. Connolley was in the block log seven times that day, and so were others. It was crazy.

Where I was on the night in question
Protecting a user talk page is an extreme sanction. We do not usually do it with penis vandals. We do not usually do it for fascist editors. We do not usually do it with caballists. We do not do it.

The protection of user:Giano II's talk page only clarified that what was desired was to stop Giano from having the ability to speak. It's easy enough to just not read his talk page. I go weeks without reading it. It's fun, easy, and profitable to not read someone's talk page. You can figure that, if they actually want to talk to you, they will go to your talk page to do it. You must not protect a user talk page because you do not like the content of their speech. That, friends, is absolutely out. If the speech on the talk page is a violation of our clear policies, then the whole account can be deleted and indefinitely blocked (e.g. someone using a talk page to advertise products, or sell books or bumperstickers, or to reveal BLP violations), but someone saying things you don't want to hear? Good grief! A slippery, elusive standard like "civil?" Give me a break: 99% of the speech surrounding any disagreement can get accused of breaking that.

We do not stop the conversation. If we do, we cease to exist.

Mens rea
No attempts at mediation have taken place. I did not know that I had committed a "war." I thought I unblocked. I didn't change it after that. I just did one unblock and one unprotect. I didn't know I even had a 'conflict' until I was notified that I was to appear before the Tribunal. Well, here I am. I'll go back to what I was doing, now, and I will hope that, in the future, people try to work out conflicts with me before they tell me that I am indicted. Geogre (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum on consensus
"Consensus" is easy for a lexicographer. For everyone else, it's damned hard to know. On any given point, there will be several positions that will gain consensus. On Wikipedia, it often depends upon which page you're reading. Therefore, one user, a long time ago, did a block "per unanimous consensus on IRC." The fact that that did not represent a Wikipedia consensus, or even, to tell the truth, an "IRC consensus" took much blood letting afterward. I have no doubt that there is a consensus to block, ban, then erase Giano, just as there is a consensus to do the same with the people who so consent. Some people define "civility" as "politeness" and, worst of all from my point of view, "deference," and so they are drawn to one pole of the magnet, while others (the people I hang out with, talk to, and cheer on) view "civility" as "healthy interchange, including invective sometimes, opprobrium sometimes, and free challenges to any notion of power all the time." We gather at the other pole of this magnet.

What is false is to confuse these views with friendship and enmity. Anyone who does that is being truly uncivil, in my view, because such a person is trying to bring in personality. This notion of "Giano's friends," as Bishonen demonstrates above, is silly. Many folks will unblock Giano. This is not because there is this "scoobies" group or anything of the sort: it's because there is a consensus that blocks like these are petty, irrational, and against policy, and there are many folks in that consensus. If anything emerges from this case, the only one with my name on it, I hope it's this: that people learn that "friends" are not involved, but ideologies and understandings of the purpose and good function of Wikipedia are. Geogre (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum on the Trees
The "William Connolley brings disrepute" argument is a double red herring. I can't stand it when Wikipedia editors get like nervous prom queens, worrying about what other people think of their dresses, and I also can't stand it when received wisdom becomes so important and the battle against trolls and dolts gets so tiring that we develop an automatic assumption of guilt about every edit. Controversial topics will be siege sites, and the only way to avoid jaundice among the castellians is to ensure that they are numerous and take turns.
 * 1) No one's expertise is real, unless it is shown in their writing, editing, and discussion. We remember SJ's two Ph.D.'s in theology, I hope.  Therefore, if there is a problematic editing and managing style, then that has to be assessed on its own.
 * 2) No outside reviewer's opinion is meaningful, unless it is through Wikipedia. If National Review or CBS, Commentary or Dissent (or their joint publication, "Dissentary"), if The Nation or US News wants to say that one type of article is a problem at Wikipedia, it means absolutely nothing by itself.  It can point to an area we should investigate, but it's as non-evidentiary as something on Wikipedia Review.
 * 3) The issue brought up in this context is that William M. Connolley behaves badly in his editing and blocks frequently. This is the only Wikipedia issue.

I urge ArbCom, to the degree that it attends reason's voice at all, to look only at the Wikipedia behavior in question. If WMC is absolutist, hasty to block, and unreasonable or petty, then he and we need remedy. If he isn't, then it doesn't matter what outsiders say.

(Reading about Wikipedia is usually humorous. I've read myself (indirectly) praised and hissed in the New York Review of Books.  Journalists are journalists.)

An "unblock"-only group of administrators
From Giano's Block history

Giano has been blocked, by my count, a total of 21 times, mostly due to incivility. The first one, for 3 hours, dates back to Oct. 12, 2006 by Doc glasgow (lifted after 42 minutes by Bishonen).


 * Giano blocks pre-IRC ArbCom case:

Giano was blocked 13 times before the IRC case,  Of the 13 blocks one was indefinite. Of the rest, the average length of the block time was about 24 hours. However, only 2 blocks of definite length "stuck" (both 3 hours; Dec 29, 2006 and July 11, 2007). For the 10 other blocks, they were lifted and Giano was only blocked for an average of about 1/2 an hour each time (that is 1/2 hour of block time "served" for every 24 hours of original block time).


 * Giano blocks post-IRC ArbCom case:

Following the IRC ArbCom case, Giano has been blocked 6 times and has sat out the block a total of 4 times (one block was "indefinite" and lifted after about 30 minutes). The blocks were:
 * by FT2 for 31 hours (enforced)
 * by Kwsn for 48 hours (lifted after 46 min.)
 * by Stifle for 3 hours (enforced)
 * by Rockpocket (indef, lifted after 30 min.)
 * by SirFozzie for 3 hours (enforced)
 * by William M. Connolley (big mess, but ultimately enforced for 24 hours)


 * Conclusions: Giano blocks of 3 hours tend to be enforced.  Wikipedia doesn't need a "block" committee of 5 administrators, it needs an "unblock"-only committee of administrators.

The 3 hour block of Giano was supported at WP:AE

 * Archived discussion
 * Closed (multi-diff - 3 edits) by Avraham with summary of "remedies applied and logged" (1st of the 3 diffs)
 * Consensus was that leaving the 3 hour block alone (neither lifting nor extending) was appropriate.

WMC's statements about blocking editors he is in POV conflicts/edit wars with

 * 1) 18 May 2008, Re: blocking Giovanni33 with whom he was in an edit war on an ArbComm case page, pointed out to him as a problem by Dmcdevit and others: "Should I have done it? Perhaps not. Feel free to unblock and then reblock him"  "I still think it was the right thing to do, though others may disagree."   I find no acknowledgment on his part that he was clearly wrong to be the blocking admin.  The community clearly agreed that the editor should have been blocked but not by WMC, and Sam Korn eventually redid the blocking to remove WMC as the blocking admin.
 * 2) 17 April 2008, Re: blocking Travb/Inclusionist. Unblocked by Viridae, reblocked by Coren.  I find review (William M. Connolley of Travb)], wherein administrative consensus appears to be that WMC should not have been the blocking admin, but the block was good.  There is greater, and unresolved in that version, concern about WMC having protected the article and then made significant edits to it.  I don't find that WMC ever acknowledged his error  - or even that it was reasonably described as an error - in being the blocking admin.
 * 3) 14 April 2008, Re: blocking Supergreenred, unblocked due to WMC's abuse without that block being restored by another admin. (Later blocked for other reasons.)  I fail to find any contemporaneous discussion with or by WMC about this block.

WMC has previously blocked at least one user for incivility directed at him

 * 1) 21 June 2007, Chris Chittleborough. Block lowered by WMC to net 8 hours, expired prior to review by independent admins.  "I certainly wouldn't block a user I was in dispute with - but I'm not in a content dispute with CC"   WMC is correct that here he wasn't in a content dispute; it is a case of a user who was incivil, warned by WMC, replied incivily, and was blocked by WMC for incivility directed at WMC.  So this is a TANGO principle issue, not a content issue.

Evidence presented by User:Inclusionist
"Connolley stirkes me as the type of editor who will abuse his admin status to enforce his pov."--''User:TDC, at Connolley's admin election. ''

William M. Connolley has repeatedly abused his adminsitrative powers
The episode in this case is not the first time that William M. Connolley has misused his administrative powers.

In my three years on wikipedia, Connolley has consistently abused his administrative powers more than any other admin I have ever seen.

Connolley has a long history of using his adminstrative powers in edit wars he was involved in:

Seven independent administrators:
 * 1) Dmcdevit, 15 May 2008,
 * 2) User:BernardL 15 May 2008,
 * 3) User:User:Bigtimepeace 15 May 2008,
 * 4) Viridae, 17 April 2008,
 * 5) Aqwis, 14 April 2008
 * 6) Chaser,
 * 7) FeloniousMonk,

All found that William has abused his administrative powers over several months by blocking editors he was in an edit war with, violating BLOCK.

Here are William's violation of BLOCK. All blocks can be found on William's block page.
 * 1) In an edit war with User:Chris_Chittleborough on Hockey stick controversy William blocks Chris. Administrator Chaser later states "you're correct that WMC shouldn't have blocked an editor he was in a dispute with" On William's page Chaser says: "Will...you can't block users you're in disputes with. The policy is unambigious and ArbCom has indicated the same thing. This is the kind of thing that people get de-sysopped for."
 * 2) In an edit war with User:Lapsed Pacifist on the page Shell to Sea‎, William blocks Lapsed for the reason "repeated re-insertion of unsourced material"
 * 3) In an edit war with User:Jaymes2 on Global warming William blocks Jaymes2 for the reason, "repeated insertion of tripe"
 * 4) In an edit war on Global Warming with User:Sterculius William blocks Sterculius for "Tendentious edtis at GW"
 * 5) In an edit war with the actual person User:PiersCorbyn in the article Piers Corbyn, which William actively edited before and after, William blocks User:PiersCorbyn for 3 hours, reason: "COI violation"
 * 6) In an edit war with User:Wedjj on Global Warming William blocks Wedjj for 8 hours, reason: "disruptive editing"
 * 7) In an edit war with User:Supergreenred William blocks User:Supergreenred (see more details above)
 * 8) In an edit war with User:Britcom on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ and Global Warming William blocks Britcom for 8 hours, reason: Restoring incivil comment for this edit: in which Brit says: "Don't be a hypocrite WC"
 * 9) In the same edit war with User:Britcom on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming‎ and Global Warming William blocks Britcom for 24 hours ‎reason: Incivility
 * 10) In an edit war with User:Wikzilla at Global warming‎ William personally blocks Wikzilla twice for Three-revert rule violations.
 * 11) In an edit war with User:ConfuciusOrnis at Climate change denial William blocks User:ConfuciusOrnis twice. William is chastized by admin User:FeloniousMonk for William abusing his administrative powers once again.
 * 12) In an edit war with user:207.237.232.228 on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change William blocks anon for three hours for this statment: "Buzz off hippy"
 * 13) With User:DHeyward on Global Warming William blocks DHeyward, length: 8 hours, ‎ reason: "violation of 1RR on GW; incivil edit summaries" There appears to be no 1RR because of arbcom. User:Viridae reverted this block.
 * 14) In an edit war with User:Lapsed Pacifist on the page Shell to Sea William blocks Lapsed for 3 hours giving the reason as "incivility" for this edit
 * 15) For comments on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming which William actively edits, William blocks 65.12.145.148 for incivility for this comment "A great read for all you cool aid drinkers."
 * 16) In an AfD which both User:Lordvolton and William are arguing in, William blocks Lordvolton for 8 hours for "incivility".
 * 17) William blocks User:HalfDome for incivility because of comments on the page Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png, which he actively edits.
 * 18) William again blocks User:HalfDome for incivility because of comments on the page Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png, which he actively edits.
 * 19) William blocks User:Isonomia/User:Haseler for a comment on William's talk page.
 * 20) William  blocks User:Jepp for comments on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, an  article William actively edits. Reason: "Inserting false information: incivility"
 * 21) William blocks User:Dean1970 for comments on Carl Wunsch, an article William edits regularly.
 * 22) William blocks User:71.211.241.40 for comments on Global warming controversy‎, an article William edits regularly.
 * 23) William blocks User:Juanfermin for 3rr on List of scientists opposing global warming consensus, an article William edits regularly.
 * 24) William blocks User:UBeR for comments on The Great Global Warming Swindle‎, an article William edits regularly.
 * 25) William blocks User:Peterlewis for comments on Historical climatology, an article William edits regularly.
 * 26) William blocks User:69.19.14.31 for incivility on Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
 * 27) William blocks User:Likwidshoe for incivility on IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, an article William edits regularly.
 * 28) William blocks User:Kismatraval for "spam" on Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
 * 29) William blocks User:69.19.14.29 for trolling for this comment "One thing is clear: this Wikipedia article and its fanatical guardians are a perfect example of how and why Wikipedia cannot be considered as a reliable source of knowledge." on  Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
 * 30) William blocks User:Grimerking for 3rr on Global warming, an article William edits regularly.
 * 31) William blocks User:Dick Wayne for posting youtube link on The Great Global Warming Swindle, an article William edits regularly.
 * 32) William blocks User:DonaldDuck07 for "incivility" for comments on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, an article William actively edits.
 * 33) William blocks User:Rotten for "incivility" for comments on The Great Global Warming Swindle, an article William actively edits.
 * 34) William blocks User:219.64.26.28 for "repeated posting of own content to sci opp on cl ch" for comments on Scientific opinion on climate change, an  article William actively edits.
 * 35) Because of an argument on his user page with newbie User:Alexandergungnahov, in which Alexandergungnahov accuses William of vandalizing his page by adding a Welcome sign, William boots Alexandergungnahov for 8 hours for NPA.
 * 36) On a page that he actively edits, Image talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png William blocks User:24.59.148.187, for the comment "making up B.S. excuses to", reason: incivility

Administrative abuse involving me and others on the same page

As Connolley was abusing his administrative powers again he wrote that he wanted to start a "major flamewar" and admitted that he broke BLOCK:
 * Time to start a major flamewar I think. may be warned, restricted, or ultimately blocked by any uninvolved administrator... is a problem, in that only the people involved understand the issues, have followed what is going on, and can issue blocks in a timely manner...There should be some way for admins to block people they are involved in disputes with. There also need to be some safeguards on it, I suppose.


 * 1) William protected the a page he was editing, and
 * 2) then proceeded to remove 15k worth of text. ,
 * 3) Two days later William unprotected the article bringing it down to semi-protection.
 * 4) William blocked Supergreenred  for reverting him, in what he calls disruption. here.
 * 5) Admin Aqwis then unblocked Supergreenred because "Due to the blocking admin's violation of our BLOCK policy".
 * 6) William blocked me in an edit war.
 * 7) I had requested the page be protected, and William  removed the protection.

Inclusionist (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Other admins have been desysopped for fewer BLOCK abuse
At least 7 other admins have been desysopped partly for fewer BLOCK abuse, see User:Inclusionist/Bad.

Connolley's activity brings the project into disrepute.
Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To give more weight to this piece of evidence, the author of the article in question does not work directly for the National Review, but rather as a journalist for Canada's National Post. He has completed a series of articles for the Post, about climate change "deniers", and the popularity and weight of the article set spun itself into a book called The Deniers.  Solomon has even said that he does not buy into all the claims those he has chronicled made.


 * The broader point is that Connolley, along with others, has consistently taken ownership of the global warming articles in an attempt to have it fit their point of view, a point of view religiously believed to be the one true one. Whether it is or not is beside the point, as the best editors are the ones who have a point of view, but you'd never know it.  That Connolley's ownership of those articles has been so blatant as to receive what amounts to international attention is problematic, and that sort of "my way or the highway" attitude seeps into not only his editing, but his interpersonal communication.  How else did it get to that point with Giano?


 * To Durova, specifically, to make this about National Review is a distraction.  Whether this criticism of Connolley was reprinted by a conservative resource is not entirely relevant.  If you want to make it relevant, CBS News (left wing) reprinted it, and the New Yorker (left wing) along with the National Post (left wing) are among your sources.  On the Workshop discussion, Newsweek (left wing) is offered up as a rebuttal of sorts.  The National Review has wide readership, and Connolley's attitude does not make it appear that Wikipedia is truly open to NPOV.  If it is, then Connolley would have no problem with some of these expert "deniers" to add to the article, right?  I doubt that. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Public reports regarding William M. Connolley and Wikipedia
William M. Connolley is one of the more notable individuals who is active at Wikipedia. This has occasionally been the subject of attention in the press and has been noted in an academic study. Worthy of note is that his expertise, and much of his editing, is at the politically sensitive topic of global warming. The immediate events that precipitated this case are unrelated to that subject.

In evidence above, Weighted Companion Cube links to a National Review article that discusses William Connolley. It may be reasonable to consider the broader impact that a ruling on him may have, both in terms of establishing the principle that no Wikipedian is so important as to be above scrutiny, and in terms of the effect that this prominent example may have upon other credentialed experts' decision whether to contribute in their area of expertise.

As a baseline, I think we can generally agree that we do want credentialed experts whose bona fides are verifiable to become and remain active at this website. Balancing that desire, we all enter a social contract by participating at Wikipedia. This site has its own policies and standards and no one is exempt from them.

Although it is true that our community sometimes applies those standards inconsistently, some degree of inconsistency is probably inevitable within a large volunteer network. Our energies should be devoted to developing remedies for those inconsistencies, rather than using this or that flawed result as an excuse for creating new problems. As a step toward meaningful reform, I recently brought live a request for comment on the Arbitration Committee and invite everyone here to join it.

One specific concern I wish to raise with all Wikipedians involved in this case is the danger of dividing into opposing teams and seeking to "score points" at the expense of our larger shared goal of building an encyclopedia. So, with an eye toward providing context for the current news story, please review the material below regarding both National Review coverage of global warming and other press coverage of William Connolley.

The National Review and global warming
Editors outside North America may be unfamiliar with National Review and its reputation. The magazine is prominent, respected, and decidedly conservative. It has consistently published articles that advocate a specific position on the global warming issue. A few representative examples:


 * "Cooled Down: The global-warming hype is running out of (greenhouse?) gas, as it very much deserves." Jan 25, 2005
 * "Inconvenient Truths: Novel Science Fiction on Global Warming" Feb 23, 2007
 * "Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’: Next week, skeptics will gather in Gotham to discuss the cold, hard facts. February 29, 2008

William M. Connolley and Wikipedia in other news/academic reports
William Connolley's Wikipedia activity has been covered in mainstream press and academia before. Draw your own conclusions.


 * Nature (subscription required) Reprinted in Newswatch India December 15, 2005
 * The New Yorker July 31, 2006
 * National Post May 3, 2008
 * Georgia Institute of Technology

Political orientation and sources listed
The National Review describes itself as conservative. From its media kit: National Review and NRO are America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion. None of the other sources declare a politial affiliation.

Evidence presented by User:William M. Connolley
I was going to go all huffy and not present any evidence because two of the arbs have jumped the gun. But, alas, like so many others I am unable to resist the temptation to add to this giant pile of unreadable words. Just about everything I could want to say has been said by someone above, though occaisionally with a "not" in front of it. I don't envy you who have to wade through it all.

Firstly, I re-iterate my original statement.

Secondly, I draw your attention to.

Thirdly, I think you should make some attempt to define wheel warring definitively. The current proposed decision doesn't do this, it merely adds yet another implicit defn as undoing each others' administrative actions. I've added my proposal, and I'm confident that you've read it. In my view block-unblock-reblock is no more wheel warring that edit-revert-revert is an edit war. You should also clarify to what degree people are allowed to rant on their user pages.

Fouthly, the National Review stuff is not only tripe, but recycled tripe: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/07/recycled_sht_from_solomon.php. Its also irrelevant, as far as I can tell.

Lastly, there are far too many accusations to refute or even read individually. Please don't assume that my ignoring them means I accept them: silence in this case betokens contempt rather than consent.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by LFOD
If anything, good old William needs to be tried in some sort of international court for creating a culture of fear by helping to build up the global warming hoax and asserting it as a fact. Thousands of poor, innocent school children come to this site looking for information for a project or report, only to find they have used up "their share" of the planet and should commit suicide. Connolley has been instrumental in embedding these ideals.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Connolley frequently edit wars over his precious global warming articles, making sure to incite his radical ideology personally. The article must be to his liking:
 * Global warming: 1, 2, 3
 * Global cooling: 1, 2, 3, 4
 * Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change: 1, 2

All of these links are pulled from the past 2 weeks; I can't be bothered to look back farther. The point however, remains the same: Connolley places himself as a god among mere mortals, thinking he can do as he pleases. Removing the very tools that he uses to harass and lie to others will have him thinking twice. This so called "edit warring" with Geogre is a minor example of how WMC uses the administrator access as leverage to promote his thoughts.

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.