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

A note from your candidate: I'm assuming this page is mostly for people to talk about me. I'll do my best to let you do that without intervening. If you have questions, it would be natural to add them to the "questions" page. If you have minor questions too trivial for there, then my talk page is open William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley
Assuming I am just allowed to add comments here, allow me to remark that I think that good arbitration is about being fair, being conscientious and perhaps being logical. There should be no requirement to be well liked or popular. We should not vote for or against WMC based on our like or dislike of him but out of respect for his fairness. The greatest strength of WMC as an Arbcom candidate is that as well as being eye-wateringly fair, and careful with details he does not much seek the approval of other people. The huge percentage of "grunt work" he has done on WP:3RR reflects fairness and not seeking approval. He takes on things in the knowledge that someone will dislike him for it but because it needs to be done. I do not think he would be a very good emperor but he would be excellent sitting as one of a set of judges. As I understand the proper role of Arbcom (arbitration) it is very hard to think of anyone better suited to the role. As with the mop, Arbcom membership is a duty not an honour and perhaps we should regard him serving a term there as community service in penance for being just a little bit too polemic over faults with the current Arbcom. --BozMo talk 10:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Ignoring appeals for help with edit warring until it is stale and then shifting blame is not a sign of fairness or good judgement. Ikip has listed some examples of what has been characterized as poor judgement here. Quite frankly this user should be before Arbcom, not sitting on it. Unomi (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For full disclosure, a number of these issues of "poor judgement" were blocks of confirmed sockpuppets... maybe they hadn't been chekusered at the time of their blocks, but if one lives in the cesspool of Wiki-climate, Scibaby socks are often very easy to spot. Also, User:Spotfixer, who is quoted as talking about Connolley's bad behavior, is has been indefed for some time now... I can't speak to the other issues that Unomi brought up as I don't know about those, but I feel it's necessary to point out that this is far from black-and-white. I happen to agree with BozMo, for the record. Awickert (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Eye-wateringly fair" is not the first phrase that comes to mind with respect to WMC. The ArbCom case that closed in September found that he "misused his administrator tools by acting while involved...on a number of occasions." This finding added credence to longstanding (as in years long) complaints by numerous editors (including many fellow admins) that WMC regularly used the tools improperly, e.g. blocking editors with whom he was edit warring, editing pages after protecting them, etc. As a result of the finding in the ArbCom case WMC was of course desysopped and also admonished not to edit war. WMC clearly did a lot of great work as an admin, but he also apparently had significant difficulty at times determining whether or not he was too involved to take administrative action, and in general exhibited rather poor judgment on a number of occasions. Obviously those are major concerns with respect to a prospective arbitrator. Being "a little bit too polemic over faults with the current Arbcom" may or may not be an issue, but questions about WMC's judgment and fairness clearly are, at least for many editors (and obviously WMC has a number of strong supporters as well). I only point all this out in reply to BozMo's comment which, while certainly expressing a perfectly valid opinion, rather screamed for a counterpoint in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re Unomi: Apparently all administrators on Wikipedia have ignored your edit warring report. Picking on the one (unpaid volunteer) who eventually did process it seems not particularly fair. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly true that no other admin did intervene, but at the time WMC was quite active on the 3rr board and would have been hard pressed to not have seen it, it could be that due to the fact that OM and verbal were downplaying it WMC thought it best to leave it alone. Regardless, closing it with 'Fault is with U, who is lucky that this report is now stale' etc to a new editor without any attempt at pointing in the right direction does nothing to help the project. Unomi (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, eye-wateringly fair. --BozMo talk 06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I must admit, the prospect of an ArbCom member who has previously been sanctioned by ArbCom appeals to my sense of mischief, and one who lists as his principal credential editing frequently on a subject while holding strong viewpoints and an arguably professional conflict of interest is particularly noteworthy. I think WMC will need to explain, at length, why he considers these strengths rather than weaknesses to his candidacy. Ray  Talk 20:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we do not want to turn this into a referendum on the rather shoddy treatment of WMC by Arbcom. I suspect if we did, he might get elected rather easily... at least if people could be bothered to read through the history properly. Not that he was without blame too of course, being right and being seen to be right are two different things and he should have cared more about the latter. However the professional conflict of interest you mention is very hard to argue. Aside from having previously been a tenured academic (and therefore de facto neutral) AFAIK WMC currently works for a software house with no relationship at all to the subjects where he has the highest number of edits? --BozMo talk 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't regard these as insurmountable. His Arbcom issues were long ago, and I'm willing to listen to any argument he wants to make about actions by Arbcoms long before I joined that may be inappropriate in the light of time. Conflict of interest is a tricky thing - it raises a flag, but the flag is not red for me, but yellow - I need to know what was going on. Especially on academic matters, the distinctions can be very fine, and depend very much on the case - we should most definitely welcome academics writing on research in their area (and, in some cases, even their own). But if they're writing about academic controversies where they have a stake, then things start becoming murkier (for instance, to use a completely counterfactual hypothetical, if Wikipedia existed in the 1920s-1930s, everybody should welcome having Niels Bohr writing about the hydrogen atom and quantum mechanics. But things become a lot murkier if he starts addressing philosophical discussions against his preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics, or anything in what was a grade-A dispute in the science of the day). Since WMC chose to raise it, I think I need to hear his position on what he was doing, and why, and where he thinks he might have brushed up against the line, and what he learned from the experience. Ray  Talk 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree on getting WMC to provide some answers at some point. But I am looking forward to the vote cos I do not know how it will go. On Bohr I thought WP existed to represent consensus rather than be correct? Correct as an aim would invite any amount of OR but consensus has to bow to experts even though (as with the millenium bug) many of them turn out to be jokers. --BozMo talk 23:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to answer questions, though not at length, but if you think that His Arbcom issues were long ago you need to do your research properly William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) A user currently blocked for disruptive editing--BozMo talk 20:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentI would like to raise my concerns about this candidate: Whilst Mr Connolley, is a very enthusiastic editor and has made valuable contributions particularly on climate articles, he simply cannot see "the another side"... that people can quite legitimately differ in their views and that both sides of a public debate must be documented in Wikipedia. To be blunt, he has no concept of "NPOV" and having seen his antics over a number of years there is no doubt in my mind that he will abuse any position of authority to push his own POV. (Sorry William, it has to be said, the world is a better place because of single-minded enthusiasm like yours, but that single mindedness makes you the wrong person for this role). (I would also like to point out that this statement was removed from his candidate statement with absolutely no communication - I admit that I was mistaken to put it there - I misunderstood what "via" that site meant - this kind of unwikipedia behaviour just encapsulates my concern about this candidate.)Isonomia (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes comments about other editors tell you more about the commentator than the editor they are commenting on. Verbal chat  19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Verbal, it does me no credit to say these things, and if I had the time and enthusiasm of William, I've no doubt it would carry much more weight and to be honest I've been lazy, and not put in the effort to help William tackle his problem, however dispite my own failings which are many and despite my dislike of personal attacks, in this case it had to be said. Isonomia (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a joke? --This guy is a POV-warrior, who has been reported for 3RR twice this week!
 * It is less the reports, more the results that count. The first ended with "Result: No Violation, WP:BLP clearly applies" - it is unclear why you think defending wiki against gross BLP violations is a bad idea. The second ended in me being trouted, which I think was fair enough. This is all about Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which is under constant attack from POV warriors. Like you; you've broken 3RR there yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

A vote for WMC is a vote for a person who cares about content, and the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia above all else. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Connolley, and I often have much sympathy with him in all the disagreements he gets into. But we don't want an arbitrator who has constant arguments with people.  Connolley is also one of the editors you meet who are always certain that they are right and everyone else is wrong.  Arbitrators should be unusually cool-headed, open-minded people.  This is the wrong job for WMC.  Sorry.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * except of course that almost all the time he is right per WP:DUCK, and prepared to take on the argumentative and vexacious souls whom the rest of us quietly ignore. Not always though, the recent 3RR was well trouted. If not WMC then who? There don't seem to be any ideal candidates at all in Arbcom this time though. Why is the field so poor? Have all the serious editors decided it is too much stress and decided to leave it to people of more limited capacities? --BozMo talk 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've decided I do not have the time to make a decent job of it, especially not with the current ArbCom style, where the general approach seems to be to wait for continental drift to build mountains, the erosion of which will then cover the problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Does "read the f*ck*ng diff" represent the kind of temperament we want in an arbitrator? I don't think so. ATren (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removal of talk page comment - This edit, from today, is the latest in a long pattern of WMC removing other editors' comments from article talk pages. He does it mainly on the Global Warming related articles, where he has an unquestioned POV. There is absolutely nothing abusive about the edit he removed, and it is from an editor in good standing. This kind of aggressive, partisan behavior is exactly not what is needed on a committee whose purpose is to resolve disputes, not escalate them. ATren (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and now he's edit warring to remove it. ATren (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Far too many editors have got into the habit of using article talk pages for chatter or to work off their humours or make barbed comments at other editors. Article talk pages are for discussions about improving the articles. Comments that fail this should be removed William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing talk page comments should be reserved to those comments which are clearly abusive. There was nothing abusive about what you removed, not even by the most stringent talk page standard. And it's made worse by the fact that the editor is someone whom is in opposition to your own POV on those pages. What this reveals is that you are unwilling or incapable of restraining yourself in situations where restraint is the best approach -- indeed, you have a long history of such aggressiveness. Not even your desysopping, which itself was the direct result of your inability to show restraint as an admin, has changed your behavior; you instead chose to lash out at the committee for handing down what most consider to be a non-controversial decision. If you can't even show restraint as a named party in an arbcom case, or even when running for arbcom, is there any reason to believe you will develop that restraint if you are elected? I don't think so. ATren (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing talk page comments should be reserved to those comments which are clearly abusive - no. That is incorrect. As I said: comments that are nothing to do with improving the article can and should be removed, abusive or not. I don't claim to be entirely consistent about this; on non-controversial or low-traffic articles a little light relief does no harm. But irrelevance on high traffic pages disrupts important discussion; adding (or worse, re-adding) such stuff is disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, the editor in question was simply comparing the relative tone of two articles in the same subject area -- an entirely valid content concern. His comment was short and to the point, and another editor responded in good faith. Your pattern of removing such relevant comments (always from editors with an opposing POV) is invariably much more disruptive than the original edits. Your attitude and behavior escalates conflicts and creates drama, which makes you entirely unqualified to serve on a committee whose role is to resolve conflicts. ATren (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC is a hard POV warrior. He is pretending to care about the quality of articles but in reality he pushes his POV. --Pevos (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am enjoying these contributions hugely, please let us have some more? I haven't seen UBer here yet for example, and there other litigants WMC has had to block too. E e cummings said in Maggie and Milly and Molly and May "For whatever we lose(like a you or a me) it's always ourselves we find in the sea". Here too we learn a lot about the frustrations of other angry editors but of course not so much about WMC.--BozMo talk 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, how about from me? I've never had any dealings with WMC, never any axes to grind with him, never any conflicts.  But in poring over the records, the diffs, the ArbCom cases, I'm quite comfortable with the assessment that he's been disruptive and divisive, and moreover that he just doesn't get it.  Bizarre as this might sound to you, it's perfectly possible for disinterested bystanders to oppose WMC's candidacy without their being Out To Get Him.    Ravenswing  15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound bizarre at all, no. And if the discussion was limited to between reasonable quality editors perhaps we would all take a more reconcilatory tone. However there is so must rubbish thrown at WMC because he did more of the 3RR blocks than rest of us put together, that those with serious reservation will get hidden amongst the trash. Look again at the Arbcom thing going right back. --BozMo talk 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Another quote from today: "If you really think that makes any sense, then you simply haven't got a clue... do you realise how little you know about this stuff?" ATren (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Over diagnosis of Dunning–Kruger effect perhaps :). --BozMo talk 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, WMC has an overdosis of Dunning–Kruger: He overestimates his ability to act as an arbitrator. In this job impartiality is necessary, and an arbitrator has to be accepted by both sides of a dispute. --Pevos (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WMC is undoubtedly highly competent, much more so than most or perhaps all of his vocal critics. But he does not make allowance in all circumstances for the fact that other people may not have the cognitive ability to recognise his superiority. Occupational hazard I guess, and his greatest weakness. --BozMo talk 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying here is WMC is unable or unwilling to suffer fools gladly. Yet that is probably the most important skill for an arbitrator to have. Couple that with WMC's habit of applying the "incompetent" label to everyone who disagrees with him, and he's even less fit to serve in that role. ATren (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you said I should correct you if you were wrong... but I am inclined to agree that WMC is unwilling to suffer fools gladly. But I am a grumpy old man and so, in my view, that is an enormous strength in his candidacy to be arbitrator. There are too many admins and on Arbcom who appear to desperately want to be loved and do all sorts of anti-project things (like desysoping WMC) in order to try to appeal to teenage community members of marginal net contribution. You remember the rather sad school teachers who want to be hip and in with the teenagers... are some of the current Arbcom members are very reminiscent of them?  Arbcom should very specifically restrict itself to disputes where there are admins ranged on both sides and this very specifically requires a high degree of analysis and care to judge them correctly. Hip lazy and not too bright is not good for the project. Arbcom members should not be MPs with weekly surgeries or try to out admin admins, or super welcome newbies. They do not need to suffer fools gladly at all.  --BozMo talk 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the primary role of the committee is to resolve conflicts. WMC's style and attitude escalates conflicts, which is why I believe he is unfit. And regarding his desysop - he blocked the opposing party in an active case! Such a block is practically the definition of What Not To Do As An Administrator, and I find it astounding that WMC and his supporters continue to treat this like a crucifixion. ATren (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per above, and Bentley, you finding something astounding is not really anyone else's problem, is it? --BozMo talk 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's for them to decide. ATren (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit Analysis
A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/William_M._Connolley. Franamax (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Page Blanking
I encountered this editor since yesterday, in relation to Climate Change articles, after my limited experiences, I am left with the impression that he didn't assume good faith ... he blanked my articles with sources ... and he may be pushing a POV. Folks can be off at times, for now I can grant him the benefit of the doubt in my assumptions. However, the experience makes me not want to vote for him as an arbitrator. I am not left with a sense of fairness. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The incident above appears to have involved the creation of an article by a WP:copyvio and has been deleted as such. Vsmith (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment, for anyone wondering William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Appearances can be deceiving. Although realistic, the concern for copyright was not brought to my attention by William M. Connolley, the article was speadly deleated, and I am investigating an apeal, becasue I didn't have fair notice or time to comment. I have been accused of a personal attack for commenting on this editors POV. (Admit, I felt harassed elsewhere by the editor.)  In all, the absence of a sense of fairness, seems to be validated now.  My instincts tell me this editor will be facing the Arb Com comitte one day again. I pray not, and not by me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ideals
WMC, do you agree or disagree with the paragraph quoted here? I ask because your opposition to privacy here was striking and unlike you, I thought. Have the climate change trenches made you too quick to perceive enmity? 99.56.137.239 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to see the connection between your two links. Also anons are not eligible to vote, or ask questions. Sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not eligible to vote, but I have a hard time figuring out why questions from anons are something to duck.   Ravenswing  19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of questions by anon's, this anon has a question: has anybody seen this article on Connolley?


 * http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx


 * Or perhaps a more recent version?


 * http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17635


 * Perhaps you users with voting rights might want to look into these articles, and allegations made, before making this man a member of the arbitration committee (of all things..). Just my 2cents. 188.103.180.152 (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, we all know that Solomon has unique and "valuable" opinions on several issues, and a way of fact-checking that seems to consist of asking a magic 8-ball. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I was literally sitting here waiting to see how quickly either you or Kim D Peterson would swoop down on this edit. It took you a good 37 minutes (you all used to be much faster). Personally, I do not edit wikipedia, but I have over the past several years followed, say once every two/three weeks, the relentless battering of any critic of any GW-related talk-page by WMC, you and Kim. I now went to check how the Climategate site was progressing, and there you guys were again!! I followed the link to Connolley's wiki page and talk page and bumped into this voting process! I felt I had to share my experience, not as an editor, but as a disgruntled user. Because of WMC's actions, and yours for that matter mr. Schulz, I have stopped using wikipedia as a source for anything remotely controversial, as have many of my friends (who all, like me, either have a PhD in quantitative fields or are in the process of obtaining one). Now, let the ad hominem's, for which WMC and you are much more famous than you realize, begin! 188.103.180.152 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but argumentum ad IP numerem does not cut it for me. Your form of address is wrong, however, and as a (budding?) Ph.D. you should get this right. What is a "quantitative field"? 3 acres? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies for my insufficient, non-native, knowledge of the English language, dear mr. Schulz. The field I'm talking about is econometrics and statistical modeling, you know, the empirical testing of scientific hypotheses. Note that this puts me in a much better position to judge much of the scientific evidence on AGW, that you and WMC generally 'dismiss' as faulty and irrelevant when presented by a skeptic on a talk page, than your computer software/hardware/whatever background puts you. This lack of scientific background has however never stopped you or WMC (who is a mathematician turned software engineer, again, no real statistics background) claiming 'scientific superiority', in every discussion you have ever engaged in regarding the topics I have followed. When you run out of arguments, you start attacking people personally, just like WMC, and just like you are doing right now. When this doesn't discourage them from contributing to wikipedia, you (yes, you, WMC and KDP) find some arcane reason to ban them. The page then gets archived, and we all 'forget' about it. This at least, is the cycle I have witnessed numerous times as a spectator on GW related talk pages, over the past two and a half years.
 * Please do go on proving my point.
 * As for my IP address being 'wrong', I truly have no idea what you are talking about.188.103.180.152 (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to take a look at forms of address. Your form of address is wrong in any language I'm aware of, and this has nothing to do with IP networks, but rather with common courtesy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Allow me to extend my apologies for any inconvenience caused by this alleged lack of courtesy.188.103.180.152 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Stereotyping editors by one edit. No AGF

 * Do we want arbs stereotyping editors by one edit, with not even a nod in the direction of AGF? I hope not. See this. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

No
WMC is one of the most problematic editors I have had the mispleasure to run across here on Wikipedia. He is rude, disruptive, ignores his many WP:COI’s and his gratuitous use of uncivil edit summaries would have paved the way for a very long mandatory vacation had he been a less well connected editor (or conversely if there were more administrators with backbone around here).

It would be a tragedy and an outrage if he were to be allowed to wield such power and influence as he would have in Arbcom. WVBluefield (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For those watching: if you're wondering what this is about, WVB is a global warming skeptic who doesn't like the current state of wiki's articles on same; I'm a convenient target. This is probably a good place to mention, if I haven't already, that I'd need to recuse on strongly GW-related article disputes William M. Connolley (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * removed - already made this point above
 * This is indeed a quite fascinating comment, but not quite so fascinating as to make it twice - I think the version in the section above, to which I've replied, should suffice William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking back they are very similar comments in two places, so I've removed this one. ATren (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ATren and WVBluefield, I very strongly agree with you --Pevos (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my experience of working with William on a recent GW related page makes me nervous about his ability to maintain sufficient NPOV and civility in this role. I'm sure he means well, but he's just too bound up in the issues, and personally too abrasive in style. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, the campaign slogan the Cabal came up with for William is "No Bullshit". No wonder some people are quivering in their boots... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

More recent WMC diffs

 * "haven't got a clue what you're on about."
 * "alas it seems I cannot rely on your word" PA directed at an editor (Pete Tillman) whom WMC accused of not following through on an earlier point, even though PT politely told him he was working on a new draft less than one hour earlier. This is typical of WMC's aggressive, argumentative style when dealing with editors on "the other side" ATren (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An earlier attempt by PT to appease WMC while PT was working on compromise wording: "I'm working on it. Patience, please". WMC responded with more impatience.


 * "put up or shut up" ATren (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But don't you think you're obsessing just a teensy bit? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. ATren (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Conflict of interest editing: WMC used to contribute regularly to the RealClimate blog, yet he is making non-trivial reverts to that article. ATren (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * another ATren (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) And now you've joined the fun  William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And why should I avoid editing there? Unlike you, I don't have any association with that site. Do you not see the difference between me and you editing that article? ATren (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

joe average
i am an avid user, but completely new to the whole weird wiki administrator ecosystem. i bumped across WMC in connection with recent AGW events and have out of curiosity read the statements here and some of the history of his edits of AGW material. this may not matter at all to any of you, and WMC may exercise whatever authority he has to wipe them out in a heartbeat, but my word, if someone like this assumes a position of authority in this wiki then I weep for the corruption of what i always admired as a great, noble enterprise. and i think everyone here knows what i mean. signed, just your average user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbbrooks (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Herbbrooks, I agree. And I want to add that WMC has a close relationship to the AGW industry science, i.e. he is computer modeller in this domain, therefore he should avoid or at least be careful editing articles concerning this, but instead he is edit-warring and pushing his POV. He would do this also as arbitrator, I'm sure. --Pevos (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pevos, WMC does not work as a modeller any longer. It states this on his userpage and he has written a goodbye post on RealClimate, as he stopped working as a scientist. He now works for CSR for 2 years. And CSR has nothing to do with AGW at all.83.86.0.82 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was going to say that. And in case it isn't obvious, like any arb I'd have to recuse in cases where I have an obvious COI - I would have to recuse on anything hinging on Global warming for example. Or to take a more likely case, if Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ came up I'd recuse. I might give evidence, though William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you continue to edit RealClimate, even though you have a conflict of interest there? If you can't avoid COI edits today, how can we be confident that you'll recuse from such topics on the committee? ATren (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you should judge my likely future actions based on my current edits. As for COI, you're welcome to your own opinion, but the world disagrees with you: William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Or to take a more likely case, if Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ came up I'd recuse." and "I think you should judge my likely future actions based on my current edits." - You mean like these edits?
 * ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * Is this an example of you showing self-restraint in the face of what you seem to acknowledge is a WP:COI above? --GoRight (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And what exactly would be WMC's conflict of interest on that page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of the emails were to/from/about him. Dduff442 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, has any reliable sources picked up on this? Is there anything controversial or otherwise incriminatory (lets even say by a long shot), in those mails (by your own estimation)? Is he part of an investigation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I presume he's part of the investigation into alleged scientific misconduct by default, though I've heard neither anything to suggest he's a direct target nor a word of scandal (which I'm sure his opponents have been working hard to find). The CoI issue here relates to the credibility of 'senior' users; WMC seems to have little understanding of the need to maintain eds' faith in the editorial process. Sailing so close to the wind (to be polite about it) as he habitually does is damaging to the credibility of this institution. There are clear precedents in law, politics and journalism relating to CoI. Anyone with any subtlety knows to err on the safe side to protect the good name of the institution; not WMC, alas.Dduff442 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well said. His inability to recognize the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety is one of the top reasons why he is a poor candidate for the committee. Or for adminship, for that matter. ATren (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC) And, speaking of credibility of the institution, Connolley's aggressive actions on-wiki have actually drawn the attention of the media. Now, I don't have a very good opinion of Solomon, but seeing Connolley quoted in a major media outlet saying "Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here" made me cringe. His aggressive attitude gives his opponents, both inside and outside Wikipedia, ammunition to attack him and his cause. Yet he continues that attitude to this day. ATren (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * His blindness to the damage done to his own chosen cause is lamentable. Most people would be given pause if they saw their own words being employed in the other side's propaganda. Not WMC. Dduff442 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was merely referring to his own claim of having a COI above. Perhaps you should inquire further with him directly as to his meaning?  Dduff442 does make an excellent point, though.  --GoRight (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, others have raised the same issue with your COI there. ATren (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That appears to be based on an error on MastCell's part. I have asked him to clarify 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WMC, you are listed as a contributor (page 2), one of 11 total contributors to that site. Your contributions there spanned 3 years, and your last contribution was May of last year, 5 months after your announced departure. This seems to be a pretty strong association, and the fact that you see nothing wrong with editing RealClimate despite such a long association with that site, leads me to believe your standard of recusal will be far less stringent than the what I would expect. ATren (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I didn't write the post. I'm only there for my nominal support for the bet that didn't happen William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Your name is in the byline. Whether it indicates "nominal support" or actual co-authorship, it reflects your close association with that site. I believe you genuinely fail to see how this would be a concern to others, which indicates (to me) that you have a blind spot when it comes to your own associations and POV. ATren (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly welcome to your POV, as I said, even if you're wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR: Is it just me, or does anyone else see Original Research supporting a POV in the Candidates series of edits posted above by GoRight? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Scott MacDonald's comment
Though he does invoke BLP when it suits him, i.e. when the LP is someone he agrees with. ATren (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Count Iblis's comment
Comment I'm not sure why you use this hypothetical case as an example; I wouldn't make such an edit and I would not expect to "win" such a case regardless who is elected. And WMC promised to recuse himself from any GW debate, anyway. --Tjsynkral (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

His science knowledge makes him a good editor, but not necessarily a good arbitrator or (as we've seen) admin. His science knowledge is not in question; it's his confrontational style and history of partisan editing that makes him unfit for the committee. ATren (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Jonathan A. Jones' comment

 * A judge who doesn't think the truth matters will deliver Sharia-style justice. Count Iblis (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly the truth matters, but decorum, civility, and policy matter too, and WMC has frequently demonstrated his deficiencies in those latter three. ATren (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of BozMo's comment

 * What could it be worth, come to that? Unless something's suddenly changed, admins get no more of a vote than any other editor.    Ravenswing  03:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess my reason for the remark is in case people wondering how to vote came by here, to get a flavour of the candidate. At a first glance at this page WMC does look rather more contraversial than he perhaps is because there are a number of frivolous editors commenting here. On the other hand I quite understand that there are serious editors with misgivings. At a rough glance the complaints about aggressive style have more credibility than the complaints about POV in my view. The balance amongst more credible editors is quite hard to call (there are a lot of people I can think of who must find this a difficult decision). At the same time there are not many candidates without drawbacks and Arbcom members do not have to be sweet. --BozMo talk 06:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved the above discussions from the comment page. Please restrict posts there to a single brief comment on the candidate or explanation of your vote. Skomorokh  16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment WP:CIVIL is a necessary ArbCom qualification
Noted at this page top the WP:CIVIL requirements are:
 * Be polite
 * Assume good faith
 * No personal attacks

William M. Connolley has established a reputation in conflict with these principles for wiki talk which are specific to ArbCom dispute resolutions. He seems to advance that conflict makes better articles. Frankly, he has been a "pain in the xxx NPOV." His recent Conflict of Interest declaration to abstain from Climate Change articles ArbCom issues is nobel. However, he hasn't shown sufficient restrain in actual article disputes and has demonstrated many times that he aggressively escalates issues, by possibly assuming bad faith in other editors. Moreover, his talk page indicates that the Climate Change lobby advanced his nomination for their agenda, which calls to question his true intentions. It is astounding that he shuns BLP and yet he desires to help resolve disputes among people. He has made many good contributions to wiki however, this is not sufficient for ArbCom where civil dispute procedure is necessary. There should be no escalation in ArbCom, there should be civil resolution. I doubt William M. Connolley whould even make a good orderly clerk there, but for a disruptive knack. I am left to assume William M. Connolley places his interest above WP:FIVE.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Better not assume such, he has been grated an opportunity to answer himself.
 * Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/William_M._Connolley/Questions_for_the_candidate
 * Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * if you're wondering what this is about William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes reader, make your own choice. Is this about me or a history of escalation without talk. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Silent Observer (until now)
When I joined Wikipedia approximately a year ago, I went in search of things to do. I stumbled up WMC's userpage and have been watching what transpires ever since. I think many of the people commenting in opposition here are simply people who get what they want by never shutting their mouths. In my opinion, WMC will not stand for any of these shenanigans. I won't mention names as it seems these certain people respond to criticism with hounding and personal attacks. If you're really curious as to what WMC is like, do the research yourself and you'll see that his actions are nothing but fair to an eye watering degree. Don't take my word for it. Like I said, do the research yourself. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not thrive on all of us holding each other to an eye-watering standard of fairness. believe it or not, several articles have thrived when various editors showed willingness to coexist with other people's differing philosophies, ideas and editing approaches.


 * Also, "eye-watering standard of fairness" is a good thing only for someone who is mediating a dispute, when it is applied consistently to both sides. When an editor is involved in a dispute, they are supposed to approach with some flexibility and openness to others. When an editor is a party to a dispute, then "eye-watering standard of fairness" is simply another word for being tendentious and contentious in regards to editing other people's material. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I think that's disingenuous. I used the phrase above originally referring to WMC overturning one of my blocks (the only one ever overturned) because I had put 3RR instead of edit warring in the block summary. He is incredibly fair and in my experience puts fairness way above personal loyalty,POV and so on. As an admin he was one of the most solicited for help but sometimes blocked the complainant if fault was against them. I appreciate that people sometimes feel that social nicety is more important than getting the content right and that compromise is better than accuracy. WMC plays by a strict logical interpretation of the rules and does so with a great deal of care and logic. On rare occasions where he is wrong he listens and U-turns. About 90% of the complainants on this page were people clearly in the wrong who resent the bright light of his scrutiny. 10% of the complainants have a reasonably point. --BozMo talk 19:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * BozMo, I have watched WMC's edit patterns for a long time now, and my impression is this: WMC has a completely different attitude in dealing with people who agree with him. I don't know your POV, but I'm guessing you are either "don't care" or "pro" on the AGW debate. For those whom he views as "skeptics" his antipathy is palpable. If you want an example, take a look at his interactions with Alex Harvey, a skeptic who has repeatedly reached out to WMC in an attempt to find common ground -- in every case, WMC has completely rebuffed him. I've had similar experiences with him, which is one of the reasons I have been so active on these pages (and, BTW, I'm not even a skeptic, just not enough of a supporter).


 * So I have no doubt that your experiences with him were good, because he treats perceived allies very well. But don't oppose his POV, or you'll be branded "waste of time" for life. ATren (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You may be right although I see some of his interactions with others (I don't have the time to read all) and I don't notice him categorising with POV. FWIW I might be technically sceptical or technically agnostic on AGW depending on precise definition (I certainly do not personally think scientific consensus is always right) but I admit I am antagonistic to lobby groups who try to influence science and my only actual contribution apart from burning logs to heat my house was being (as a senior manager in Shell) partly behind Shell Oil Quitting the Global Climate Coalition more than a decade ago (it cost me time and a 1963 bottle of port to Rob Walvis who was head of public affairs). Where I have common ground with WMC though is us both being PhD mathematicians with some serious understanding of logic, set theory, analogy etc. not to mention peer review. I know that he reasons in a particular way and tend to agree with his reasoning because I have a similar training. The problem I have with a number of those on his page is they do not follow rules of logic, non-sequitors and false analogies abound in their arguments and quite often it is hard to follow any kind of reasoning at all. I don't know if this is the Dunning–Kruger_effect and they cannot see the difference between high and low quality arguments or whether I am just failing to be sufficiently broad minded and egalitarian to embrace people who reason differently. In general I think the projects interests are that we are just a teeny bit elitist about this kind of thing but socially I am inclusive and so I struggle. The fact that I struggle means I spend time trying to explain things to people more than WMC does. Perhaps his clear sight on the issue makes him superior, certainly his acheivements here are spectacularly more than mine. --BozMo talk 08:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Bozmo,

"About 90% of the complainants on this page were people clearly in the wrong who resent the bright light of scrutiny. 10% of the complainants have a reasonably point."

that is your OPINION. By that, I mean that it is an opinion, and it is one which you hold. hope you see my point. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, really it is my judgement, in the same way that what consitutes NPOV can only be a judgement. But no, I am afraid I don't see your point (or ZP5's mysterious point below). If it is not strictly relevant to the topic here (e.g. it is about me) then feel free to expound on it at my talk page. --BozMo talk 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for the “silenced” editors this candidate may have driven off from wiki. I am involved with a dispute, and from my investigation and comments contributed so far, there is “about as likely as not” that there are other editors who feel as I do and are not represented here. After my own investigation, I have a “high degree of confidence” that when reasonable and disinterested folks look into this candidate’s dispute resolution practices, they will find:
 * a. Escalated issues without adequate talk,
 * b. Ignoring attempts to talk, and
 * c. The Candidate's attempts to resolve disputes may create greater disruption than benefit to wiki principals.
 * I am very pleased to see editors attempt to quantify their opinions; however, where now is the agreed upon measurement scale but in your owe opinion right now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bozmo, I disagree completely with your blanket generalization about your fellow editors, that all of them are wrong. your statements are stark proof of your own divergence from some basic principles. have you ever been involved in an edit dispute where you were able to admit that there were legitimate concerns and opinions on both sides? That is one of the fundamental and basic ways that disputes are resiolved successfully here at Wikipedia.


 * If you wish to make dismissive statements about me, or about "90% of the editors" here, or about anyone else who holds opinions which are different in any way, then that seems less than fully constructive. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bozmo, the Arbcom's findings faulted Connolley for misusing Admin tools. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley. Are THEY part of the 90% who are supposedly wrong? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbcom are not on this page, wisely. I wonder how many of them have the courage to vote yes in the interests of Wikipedia and against their own cosy life. And anyway yes in that case the few members of Arbcom who heard the case, except NewYorkBrad who dissented were sloppy and wrong. As was said by a crowd of people including at least six or seven admin spectators at the time. They should never have taken a case of that sort and in general should never take a case without a sponsoring admin. As for here I am reading the statements here carefully and looking at the editors contributions to conclude 90%. There are credible statements I disagree with and there are statements by non-credible contributors. But I am behind with reading and answering things and am pretty busy. --BozMo talk 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions from GoRight
Having only recently become aware of these on-going elections, I wanted to ask a few questions of this candidate so I posted them here and then gave the candidate a courtesy notice [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&oldid=330390274#Just_a_brief_heads_up. here]. The candidate responded by questioning the validity of having late questions, which he is technically within his rights to do, and started a discussion here. Since I am late in asking the questions the candidate prefers that they be removed rather than responding to them since he considers them to be "thinly veiled POV". See the full discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Just_a_brief_heads_up. here].

Now, with that as the underlying context and background, I humbly reproduce my questions here and respectfully ask the candidate to reconsider his position and respond to them as he sees fit. --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. As I am sure you are aware, the proper application of WP:NPOV sometimes involves the inclusion of certain points of view that some may find disagreeable. As an arbitrator, would you seek to ensure that minority points of view are protected from being silenced by the tyranny of the majority?  If so, what are the primary tools which you would employ in trying to achieve that goal?  --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 2. Can you describe for us some examples of the types of things that you consider to be valid WP:NPOV disputes? Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to place the  template on a given article, if ever?  --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 3. On the issue of WP:CIVIL you have indicated that the best you believe we can hope for is parliamentary language. If we had a Wikipedia-specific list of unacceptable words and or phrases, what types of things do you believe should be included?  As an arbitrator would you be in favor of developing such a list?  --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 4. Many people believe that humility is an important trait for any leader or person of authority. Looking back on all of your experiences here at Wikipedia, have you ever felt humbled in any way and if so would you care to briefly relate what you consider to be your most humbling experience here?  (Obviously it is OK if you prefer not to respond.)  --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 5. You have obviously been very involved in the Global Warming related articles. Given your significant level of involvement in that area, should a case come up related to Global Warming would you be likely to recuse yourself, or not, for that case?  --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE: The candidate indicated that in the discussion on his talk page that he had already addressed this issue in the questions. Looking through them I assume he is referring to his response to Vecrumba, specifically:
 * "Objectivity is hard to maintain in issues you care about (I would have to recuse in cases related strongly to global warming, for example, but arbcomm is there to decide not to recuse so I would not do so too freely), but is a state I cultivate; you can look at my block log if you like."
 * Can the candidate please elaborate on "I would not do so too freely?" Can you please provide some examples where you would be likely to recuse?  --GoRight (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Respose: it would happear the you 'ave been taking lesson in 'umble from AH. These are largely POV-pushing disguised as questions; as I said before you haven't even troubled to do your homework. It isn't clear what puts you above the std question deadline; your deliberate desire to be disbliging, however, puts you in no position to ask favours William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "It isn't clear what puts you above the std question deadline" - I don't put myself above anything. I have agreed to let the questions be removed from the "questions page" where I now note that you directed me to go with your comment at the top of this very page.  There is no deadline that I am aware of for asking the questions here, or am I incorrect on that as well?


 * You should read the top of this page; you're abusing this page for your POV. Removing the questions to here and expecting answers appears about as meaningful as imposing a 1000 word evidence limit but permitting linking to sub pages. Answering your questions here appers to me to be a violation of the spirit of the time restriction. However, there is a talk page for getting those in charge of the election to discuss such problems. You should ask them William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "You should read the top of this page; you're abusing this page for your POV." - I have read the top of the page.  This page is for discussing you as a candidate.  There is no restriction on my asking you questions here, nor is there any particular reason that you cannot respond to questions posted here.  As I said, you are free to answer as you see fit ... i.e. answer or not as you choose.  I fail to see how this is an abuse of anything.  I have asked you neutrally worded questions that are relevant to the topic at hand.


 * "Answering your questions here appears to me to be a violation of the spirit of the time restriction." - So your argument is that you would answer my questions but you are somehow being prevented from doing so by the time restriction? I fail to see any merit to this argument.  The time restriction was on my submitting questions to that page, not on you being able to engage in good faith discussions after that deadline.  That would clearly be silly and counter-productive.  Answer, or not, as you choose but not responding reflects poorly on you, IMHO.  Others can decide for themselves on that point.


 * Per our discussion here, I will simply note the selective manner in which you have chosen to handle late questions and leave it at that. Is this an example of the even handed treatment editors can expect of you as an arbitrator?  --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the deadlines, the simple fact of the matter is that one of your fellow editors is asking you legitimate questions regarding how you would respond as an arbitrator. Are these intended to be hard questions for you to answer?  Of course.  I am not obligated to toss you softball questions, nor is it in your best interests, IMHO, for you to try and dodge the harder ones.  How one responds to one's critics in the face of situations such as this is a good test of one's character, IMHO, which is why I am asking hard questions.  I shall leave it to others to decide whether you are taking a high or a low road in this case.


 * My questions are worded in a perfectly WP:CIVIL and neutral manner, completely consistent with parliamentary language as far as I can tell. Rather than dodging them and making it appear as you have something to hide or that you prefer to squabble about personal conflicts in this context, I would think that you are politically astute enough to surmise that you would be far better off simply giving an answer here if you are serious about being an open and transparent arbitrator as you have stated you aspire to be.  Note that there is no right or wrong answer to any of these questions, so it is not like there is some hidden trap buried inside them.  I honestly want to know how you would respond.


 * While we are obviously in disagreement over the best manner in which to document the global warming controversies, outside of that context my opinion of you as a potential candidate here is likely much more neutral than you might suspect. Seriously.  Thus far I have not taken a stand either way and I await your responses to help me make up my mind as, I am sure, are others.  --GoRight (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * GoRight put together very fair and balanced questions. The current response is typical "you're pointless" or "you're a POV".  Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously, WMC expects everyone here to be contentious, and to phrase their questions in a difficult manner. then his own conduct makes that into a self-fulfilling expectation. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BINGO!! Give Sm8900 a prize for a "straight on the row" about the candidate. Ignoring the shadow as they might say, conflict starts within. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I've not been actively involved in WP for probably a couple of years (at least) now, although I visit constantly and anon-edit a bit. But when I saw WMC was up for ArbCom I came here immediately, and almost as quickly went to vote "Oppose". Except, then I thought I'd read the candidate statements and questions pages, and decided that would be quite unfair. Although my only experiences with this editor have been fairly negative (hey, I got involved on a page about a rather one-sided global warming documentary, what did I expect would happen) I would much rather have someone who'll at least try to be active on ArbCom than a load of wiki-lawyers who'll just tiptoe around the issues or drag them out over weeks/months/years. QmunkE (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I was active on several resolutions and compromises on editing disputes in Israeli-Palestinian articles. i can honestly say that many of the positive measures which we found useful there would probably be contradicted by this editor's approach to various editing issues and to dispute resolutions. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Statements by CaC
I'm late, I know, but I promised a letter of recommendation. 07:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC) To whom it may concern: Why WMC? We need straight talk. WMC's a first officer. He's not popular politically, but should that be the point of ArbCom? Editors don't end up in arbitration looking to improve the encyclopedia. They end up there because they're smart enough to not to get blocked for edit warring or personal attacks, but are too stubborn to achieve consensus (see WP:PBAGDSWCBY). The point to the long dissertations on the evidence and workshop pages aren't always objective or substantial, but silly and subjective. We need a gatekeeper who will speak succinctly. Remember that ArbCom is a team. Remember our job as voters is to load it not with just the popular people, but those who will empower it. Realize that WMC's NPOV record is disconcerting, but remember he'll be on average outnumbered one to nine. I therefore recommend WMC to the Arbitration Committee. Thank you, ChyranandChloe Primary Contributor WP:PROCESS

"Realize that WMC's NPOV record is disconcerting, but remember he'll be on average outnumbered one to nine." - With all due respect, acknowledging that WMC even HAS a disconcerting record on WP:NPOV given that policy's prominent role here isn't much of a recommendation. Nor is having to rely upon his being "on average outnumbered one to nine" particularly reassuring that this disconcerting record won't be elevated to an entirely new level. Surely we can elect candidates who don't come with this much baggage. --GoRight (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe. If my letter were only positive platitudes, it would be rather shallow. Go Right, I think you just don't like WMC. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as you yourself point out, it isn't actually about his being popular ... with me or anyone else. I don't bear any particular animosity towards WMC personally.  He has conviction and I can respect that.  I can even be friends with people who hold different opinions than mine so long as we can agree to disagree.  But here, in this context, where we are discussing things greater and more important than ourselves as individual editors, the question is as a candidate can he rise above the interpersonal sniping and be objective and put his personal differences aside for that greater good?  I believe that his refusal to answer neutrally worded questions simply because of who is asking them speaks volumes on that point.  I leave it to others to decide for themselves exactly what it is saying.  --GoRight (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would we elect one corrupt supreme court justice in the hope that they'll always be out-voted? --Michael C. Price talk 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I trust the above analogy will not be reverted again by WMC who has a rather obvious COI..... --Michael C. Price talk 11:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess now you have explained it is an analogy it won't although the argument is contorted. ChyranandChloe I wouldn't worry about GoRight's dislike of WMC too much if you look at the history. @WMC a quick diff on any history between you and MichaelCPrice would be handy or I might have to adjust 90-10 to 86-14. --BozMo talk 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see how anyone could understand that it was anything but an analogy. --Michael C. Price talk 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bozmo; so the reason that dozens of good-faith editors object here to WMC's candidacy is that ALL of them are wrong, correct? Did you ever hear of respecting different opinions? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I can only count fingers of one hand on "good-faith editors" objecting. Must be innumerate I guess. Plenty of editors I know well enough to judge the project would be better off without them mind you. --BozMo talk 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? How great for you. I on the other hand, cannot think of a single editor whom I would take it upon myself to decide that we're better off without them; that includes you. Guess i just don't have your infallible ability to pass judgments on everyone who holds a differing opinion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Can someone explain Bozmo's comment about adjusting the votes? Is it a sick joke, or does previous history w.r.t. WMC determine voting eligibility? --Michael C. Price talk 15:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not at all about adjusting votes -- BozMo made a comment earlier (a few sections above) that maybe only 10% of editors have a valid beef against WMC and the rest were just bitter due to conflicts with him. By adjusting to 14% in responding to you, I think maybe he was actually conceding that you have a valid concern, but I don't want to put words into his mouth so I'll leave it to him to clarify. ATren (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Michael C. Price talk 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd that BozMo (a trained mathematican, he claims) requires an editor's previous history to determine whether an editor's currently making a logical argument.... No wonder he can't find fault with WMC. --Michael C. Price talk 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a mathematician I realise you did not present a logical argument but you presented an opinion. You appear to have been blocked for 3RR by WMC in the past but I am not really in a position to judge if your negative opinion is based on that, something worse or something valid. It is a strange coincidence what a high proportion of negative views here seem to have an axe to grind. --BozMo talk 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is my opinion that we don't elect corrupt judges for the same reason that we shouldn't elect desysoped admins who care little for NPOV; I didn't realise a maths PhD would stop you seeing the logic of this. As for the block from almost three years back, if you investigate further you will see that I accepted the block as fair, and said so at the time.  Thanks for confirming your inability to move beyond ad hominem judgements. I can see now why you are such an ardent WMC supporter. --Michael C. Price talk 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing is certain, I would be happy for anyone to read what you actually said above, what I actually said and judge on that basis. --BozMo talk 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll try it. do i qualify as "anyone"? hmmm, let me see...hmmm, hmm and hmmm. welll, sorry, i agree with Michael, and disagree with Bozmo. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am crying into my coffee with concern about your opinion Steve. Anyone else who wishes too is very welcome too. --BozMo talk 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement by dduff442
Militancy proves especially dangerous when combined with political power. It creates a delusional sense in those who rule of being chosen by God for a divine purpose and reward. It encourages the conviction that their norms alone are absolute, their form of government superior to all others and their faith is the only really true religion. Such fundamentalists demonize 'the other' as evil in the psychological equivalent of declaring war, cutting off all possibility of dialogue or compromise. They no longer feel obliged to treat opponents as human beings. Problems to which they might have contributed are blamed entirely on the enemy. But such self-confidence is inherently dangerous to themselves as well as their enemies. The belief in divine assistance encourages fundamentalists to take risks, convinced that mounting odds are merely part of God's plan to test their faith. They remain convinced that ultimate victory is theirs by right. This can stiffen resolve and motivate stubborn resistance, but it is poorly suited to achieving military success. Fundamentalists have no real knowledge of their opponents whom they refuse to understand.
 * Peter Wilson, Europe's Tragedy, p. 10


 * Wilson's shrewd insights relate to the religious conflicts of the Thirty Years' War, but nearly everything he says is applicable to Al-Qaida, say, or the Imperial Japanese Army. Every ideology throws up a sprinkling of such individuals. There are certain characteristics that unite all fundamentalists regardless of whether the cause is reasonable or unreasonable. Sadly, though I share Connolley's 'faith' and reasoning, I believe his 'inherently dangerous self-confidence', his denial of 'all possibility of dialogue or compromise', his failure to accept any responsibility for 'problems to which he might have contributed' and crucially his lack of 'real knowledge of his opponents whom he refuses to understand' make him totally unsuited to a position of authority in Wikipedia. Dduff442 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support 100% ATren (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Hits the nail on the head. --Michael C. Price talk 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

if you were wondering William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Homily Directed at the Candidate
In 1944 Japan despatched a mixed force of fighters and bombers to Guam. The bombers arrived safely but the fighters were delayed by poor weather.

With the US fleet closing in, the local Japanese commander was faced with a decision: risk the loss of the bombers on the ground while awaiting the fighters or send them on a suicidal attack without escort. In spite of his subordinates' desperate pleas he chose the latter option, the bombers attacked and were annihilated without troubling the Americans in any way.

So what prompted this act of stupidity? The Japanese commander risked criticism for inaction if he failed to attack whereas he had an excuse handy if he did do so -- the fighters' failure to arrive.

At this point it should be mentioned that the officer's physical courage in his Emperor's cause was certainly absolute. His decision to attack was nonetheless an enormous failure of moral courage as it entailed squandering a huge amount of blood and treasure -- things rightly belonging to the Emperor in that worldview -- in defense of his own status. How can this paradox be understood?

When faced with danger the average person is caught between fear of death and hope of escape. In contrast, when the fanatic is faced with danger he is caught between the twin fires of fear of death on the one hand and an even greater fear of shame on the other. This is true whether the fear is of shame in his own eyes or those of his peers though the details vary depending on which is the case. The fanatic is made of the same stuff as the rest of us but his worldview subjects him to inner strain the human mind simply cannot endure. Like the rest of us he is human, all too human.

Therein lies the explanation for a paradoxical pattern of direct fearlessness interspersed with occasional but repeated and massive failures of moral courage that characterised the Japanese war effort. The career of Masanobu Tsuji is emblematic of this pattern. Whereas Tsuji was a brilliant staff officer he was also insubordinate to the point of mutiny, helped provoke a disastrous military confrontation with the USSR at Khalkin Gol in spite of orders to the contrary, regularly lied to his superiors, sent thousands of men to a pointless death on Guadalcanal with one such lie, and yet still believed himself to be a paragon of moral virtue. His partly justified certainty in his own brilliance blinded him to a moral rot obvious to everyone but himself, making him archetypal of the kind of self-defeating militant decried by Wilson.

Now I have no way of knowing how much of this applies to the candidate. Certainly I've no reason to suppose he's some sort of maniac and this is not what I'm trying to convey. The pattern of blindness to his own counter-productive actions is not inconsistent with a mild form of this mindset, however.

Most people would reconsider their position if they found their statements being employed in propaganda for their opponents' consolation, or if some action of theirs were subject to basically universal condemnation as happened in the incident resulting in WMC losing his admin privileges. I've seen nothing in WMC's case to suggest he doesn't believe himself to be morally exemplary.

I contrasted the relative success of the campaign against the evil propaganda of Big Tobacco during the 1960s and 1970s with the seemingly faltering effort to achieve universal acceptance of AGW here. The cancer researchers retained their credibility throughout the campaign making their victory over the well-funded tobacco company propaganda ultimately inevitable.

My diferences with the candidate are tactical rather than principled. I believe he hurts his chosen cause as much as helping it. Dduff442 (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Regrettably, I voted against
As a firm believer in AGW, and the threat it poses, I regret to say I knew I had to oppose WMC's candidacy as soon as I became aware of it. It's not even so much that WMC is POV pushing, but that he seems to be far too sure of his own opinion to be an effective, or useful, arbitrator. My impression is he knows he's right, and acts accordingly. Odd thing is, in my experience to-date he has always been right about the substantive stuff. But, ultimately, the encyclopaedia depends upon the volunteer community, and upon the policies and guidelines that make it a functional community. To over-simplify and over-dramatise, a benevolent dictator can never be a good thing in an already functioning flawed-democracy. Genuinely sorry WMC. :-/ Jaymax (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad that not everybody allows their POV to overwhelm their sense of judicial fair play. --Michael C. Price talk 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward
I almost think the best thing that could happen is that WMC is elected. He will so bring ArbCom into disrepute within Wikipedia, and Wikipedia into disrepute generally, that much-needed reform will become inescapable. --Michael C. Price talk 01:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I voted in favor, precisely because Arbcom needs no-nonsense Arbitrators who will find pragmatic solutions to problems. The criticism against William's conduct as Admin makes him actually more suitable as Arbitrator. If you have an interventionist mentality, then it is easy to abuse your power as an Admin (I'm not saying that William actually abused Admin tools). But as Arbitrator, you would be more motivated to accept requests for arbitration and to spend the time to find good solutions to the problem. There is no risk of abuse of power here, as decisions are taken by consensus among Arbitrators.
 * One thing is sure, William would never have done what Tznkai did here. The only other Arbitrator here, Ncmvocalist, happens to be the only one who backed Tznkai's view that Brews violated his topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no risk of abuse of power here, as decisions are taken by consensus among Arbitrators. I'm amazed that this excuse gets trotted out and supported by intelligent editors. Would you dream of electing a corrupt supreme court judge on this basis? --Michael C. Price talk 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "corrupt judge" analogy is not appropriate. A corrupt judge could be someone who will let his judgement affect by personal gain. In this case, Williams critics assert that he become too much involved in disutes when he was exercising his powers as an Admin. But as an Arbitrator it is actually a good thing to have such an interventionist mentality. If you are someone who is not motivated to get involved in editing conflicts you may as an Arbitrator typically vote not to accept requests for Arbitrations.
 * Also, even if the Arbitration case somehow gets affected by bad judgements, the Arbitrators depend on the Wiki community and other Admnoins to enforce their rulings. If you read my link to Tznkai's attempt to ban Brews Ohare for a year, you see that he got nowhere with his request, despite the fact that both Arbitrators in that discussion agreed that Brewes violated his topic ban. Had Tznkai blocked Brews, another Admin would have unblocked him.
 * Note that I voted against Jehochman, because I think he is the mirror image of William. He is not someone who would use his Admin powers when he is even slightly involved in a dispute (e.g. he unblocked Brews and David during the AN/I discussions preceding the Arbcom case). But after the Arbcom case, he did make some statements during Arbcom clarification/enforcement discussions involving Brews requesting Brews to be baned simply because people were bringing enforcement requests against Brews (except in the last request). So, he could be the kind of Arbitrator who doesn't look deeply at the actual facts of the case. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Anarchists for this thread. Up WMC, down Wiki!! Oi Oi Oi   Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Against. This editor is a hard-core POV-pusher
This editor is an edit-warrior and hard-core POV pusher who's repeatedly violated WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I understand. So you've reported them for this and... ? --BozMo talk 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To who? Admins are notoriously reluctant to exercise their powers, even when it's a no-brainer.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Support
I have cast my vote in favor of three candidates only, out of the four with whom I have had interaction of Wikipedia. The reason I decided to make a point of supporting William M. Connolley's candidacy is because he is a no-nonsense administrator, who is willing to take action where it is needed and at the time it is needed. Other editors often discuss too much to be of any good. This type of admin in a committee, any committee, will be a valuable asset to it, in my opinion. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)