Talk:William Connolley

What Happened on September 13, 2009?

Did he resign his position voluntarily? Or was he sacked? Seems to me this information belongs in the article if it's available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.50.87 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sacked: [1] --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Added. JettaMann (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What does he do now ? .. The article states he was employed "until December 2007". What's he been doing for the last 2 years ? Is it unemployed and pre-occupied on wikipedia to find another job since then ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.231.171 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Using the arbcom ruling as a source

I still have serious problems with this. We don't generally use Wikipedia as a source for anything, and especially not in a BLP. I know it's obvious that the statement is true, but I'm saying it still doesn't belong here because the sourcing is completely inadequate. I think nothing should be said about WMC's sysop status at all, unless it appears in independent sources.

I looked through the talk page above, and I see there is significant support for the position NOT to include it. To me it looks like a no-consensus at best. So perhaps we can open this up to BLP/N or RS/N to get more uninvolved input? ATren (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should not rely on Wikipedia pages (articlespace, projectspace, or wherever) as independent sources, particularly in a biographical article. If someone's administrative status has been discussed by an independent, extra-Wikipedian, reliable, BLP-compliant source, then it's fair game. But if the only source is a Wikipedia Arbitration case page, then it doesn't belong. Incidentally, I suspect that the Committee themselves might be horrified to find their decision pages being cited as standalone sources in a BLP. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well we certainly wouldn't want them to be "Horrified" by their words, which incidentally they don't own once posted on WP. Regardless, it is absurd to say that you can't use the arbcom ruling. Right now the section reads like a bad story plot. "WC stopped being an admin on date X." "Why?" "Well, we can't say because the WP Arbcom ruling is not a Reliable Source." "Well I see an opinion piece states he lost it because of Y, why can't we use that source?" "That source is not a RS for a BLP, you need to find an RS that quotes the Arbcom......" Seriously, I feel like this is a situation where a cop is watching someone rob someone else but can't do anything about it because it is outside of his jursidiction. Everyone here knows what happened, we have the information, why so obtuse? Arzel (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't really reliability, its relevance. Normally, nothing on Wikipedia is considered a reliable source - and in most cases, the problem is in fact the reliability of what you might find on Wikipedia. But in this specific case, I don't think anyone would dispute that the ArbCom ruling (or a link to the database entry removing WMC's bit) is reliable - the question is whether its at all relevant. We normally rely on the editorial judgment of conventional reliable sources both for determining the importance of a particular fact, and for verifying the fact itself. While verifying the fact itself isn't a concern here, determining its importance is very much the problem - until a reliable, external source covers WMC's changed administrator status, we should leave it out of the biography about him. Nathan ^T 20:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Arzel: You're misinterpreting my words. I doubt ArbCom are "horrified" by their own decisions. I do think they might be less than thrilled to see the uses to which those decisions are being put in this particular biographical article. I write things on my blog that I would be horrified to see cited on a website like Wikipedia, which aspires to be a serious, scholarly reference work. Do you see the distinction?

You're saying that because something is true, that it must go in the article. That isn't how Wikipedia works - in fact, it's not how any biography is written. We filter true items all the time and include only those which are relevant and notable. Suppose we know for a fact that William is 6'2" tall, or drives a 2004 Subaru, or once paid X dollars to buy a house? These all may be "true" and even matters of public record, but none seems appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedic biography.

I know it's hard to get perspective when we are Wikipedians, but no one outside this little bubble particularly cares whether William holds administrative rights on this website or not. If someone did care, then we'd be able to point to independent, third-party reliable sources noting the fact. Do you know of any such sources? MastCell ^Talk 20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I've argued above, I have not yet seen a good argument to convince me that the ArbCom decision is not an adequate reliable primary source for its own content. Perhaps more relevantly, does anybody here actually dispute that it is true that William Connolley was desysopped? If not, I find it disingenuous to oppose the inclusion of this fact based solely on WP:RS wikilawyering.

As to relevance, I suppose one might make a good faith argument that his WP activities are not relevant or that he is not notable. I do not know or care, really, about either this or the ideological wars that seem to be going on with respect to climate change on- or offwiki. But what motivated me to put the fact into the article in the first place was that I work WP:OTRS, and there are very many incoming e-mails to the tune of "I've read this op-ed and I demand that Wikipedia fire this [random slur] at once!" Now, without wanting to comment on the merits of the op-ed, or on these e-mails, or indeed on the sort of people who write them, this shows to me that this op-ed has made William Connolley a public figure for his Wikipedia editing, and it would help us (and the OTRS team) to have an article stating the relevant facts, including notably that he is no longer an admin so we can't "fire" him in any meaningful way even if we, whoever that may be, wanted to. So please put it back as long as we have that article.  Sandstein  22:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but WHAT? It's really not our job to make your job easier. The Solomon piece is crap, and has been found so by the Wikipedia community (see e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:William_M._Connolley_and_Global_Warming: "the hyperventilations of an opinion journalist...are not a credible foundation"). The correct way to handle this as a volunteer representing Wikipedia is not to say "we already fired him", but to point out that the claims are baseless and wrong. If you (or Wikipedia) does not have the spine for this, at least do no harm. That said, as before, I don't have objections to source the deadmining to the ArbCom case as long as we keep this to the minimum. In particular, while the result can be sourced, the (claimed) findings and lengthy discussions of ArbCom are WP:PRIMARY sources and cannot be used in a BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I generally agree. As an OTRS volunteer, you must be used to sorting the wheat from the chaff in terms of the complaints you receive. If you're getting a lot of "zOMG I demand that Wikipedia fire Connolley!!1!!1", then it might be worth having a semi-canned email response to such complaints, calmly describing the way administrative rights are granted and revoked on Wikipedia, and perhaps noting that William's have been revoked. The proper response is not to alter his WP:BLP to include material which lacks any independent sourcing. Angry (and poorly informed) emails to OTRS should not be a rationale for compromising our sourcing guidelines on WP:BLPs, no matter how many of them there are. Do other OTRS volunteers share the opinion that this is a valid rationale? MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am using a canned response (it's been improved since). It's not the place of an OTRS volunteer to express an opinion about the op-ed (or about any other conduct/content dispute), but to inform the complainant about our community procedures for handling such matters. My point was that if we had a complete article, possibly fewer people would write angry e-mails in the first place. But that's of course a very secondary concern to getting the article right, which I think we would be doing by including the mere fact of the desysop.  Sandstein  23:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're dealing with people who can be motivated by a partisan op-ed to fire off angry rants without checking their most basic assumptions. I doubt that including a few words on a Wikipedia biography is going to deter that sort of mentality. At best, you'll switch it over to angry emails demanding to know why he wasn't desysopped sooner. :) Anyhow, the main issue is the sourcing. I just don't see how internal Wikipedia processes are sufficient standalone sources for a BLP. Have you considered asking ArbCom members for their opinion about using their decisions as standalone sources in a BLP? MastCell ^Talk 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, ArbCom members have no particular authority in content disputes such as this one. If I may, I'll expand on what I said above: The prohibition on self-published sources for BLPs does not exist because they such sources are a priori wrong (they may be right or wrong just as other sources are). Rather, it exists because we are not in a position to evaluate the reliability of self-published sources and so we have made a (correct, IMHO) policy decision to exclude them as a general precaution. But this is not a problem in this specific case: We as veteran Wikipedians are very well able to evaluate the reliability of an arbitration case page, at least insofar as that we can make sure that what the case page says is what the Committee did indeed decide. Also, an arbitration case page is not self-published without any oversight in the way a Wikipedia article or a blog post is: I daresay the Committee has a reasonable reputation of fact-checking and accuracy, which is at least comparable to the oversight applied to the publication of mainstream media content.

Or to put it more simply, the purpose of WP:BLP is to ensure that articles are factually correct. Since nobody here can in good faith doubt that the arbitration case page correctly documents the desysop of William Connolley, any interpretation of WP:BLP that would prevent us using the ArbCom decision as a source is wrong, or at least contrary to the purpose of the BLP policy, and should be ignored because it hinders us from writing a complete article about a (presumably) notable subject.  Sandstein  06:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"the Committee has a reasonable reputation of fact-checking and accuracy" - um, no. They have a reputation of trying hard, but often only looking skin-deep. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• With regard to sourcing, most of the article uses weak sourcing that is either primary, unreliable, or not independent. I'm fairly inclusionist, but other than a few mentions in articles about other subjects I don't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources for this subject. So if the article is kept then I think it's important to use the best sources we can. If we're going to hold the article to high standards and include only content that meets Wikipedia standards, then I think deletion or a merge to a mention in other articles are the best options because there's not enough here to build a legitimate article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I do not disagree but it has been AfDed many times... --BozMo talk 20:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on deletion, but if we're going to have an article about someone whose marginal notability is based largely upon their Wikipedia work, their opinions, and their controversial involvement in climate issues, then it seems a bit weird to leave out content addressing those issues, even if it is weakly sourced. The last AfD was in 2008 and it was apparently a joke nom. So that takes it back to 2007 for the most recent nom. The standards for BLPs seem to have firmed quite a bit since then, especially for controversial biographies of Wikipedians (see for example [2]) and the Sam Blacketeer article was also deleted not too long ago.

The article might survive even now (although I can't see how it meets our standards) based on the number of friends and allies Connolley has among fellow global warming advocates here on Wikipedia, but if we keep it I think it would be best to make it less promotional and more balanced. The content in the article now is even less reliably sourced than the sources being excluded and it doesn't seem appropriate to me to keep what amounts to a promotional CV for marginally notable Wikipedians. Which cite demonstrates substantial coverage in a reliable independent source? If we're going to keep Connolley's own articles as sources, then why wouldn't those of Lawrence Solomon be worth including since those have been published in a major paper and since we have Connolley's responses to balance them with? Isn't that debate what makes him Connolley notable, to the extent that he is? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're talking about multiple issues, and mixing them together in a way that makes responding to them challenging. One could have a legitimate pro or con stance on including Solomon's op-ed; despite its logical flaws and misleading inferences, it was at least published by an independent newspaper. The Arbitration Committee decision is a different kettle of fish - it is published/mentioned by absolutely no independent source outside Wikipedia that I am aware of. That makes it worse than pretty much every other source in this article, and certainly unsuitable for a WP:BLP.

A separate question is whether the article should exist at all. If you feel strongly that it doesn't meet WP:BIO, then the proper course of action would be to nominate it at WP:AfD. I have my doubts, as do you, about the signal-noise ratio of such a discussion, but that's the only option. The coverage in Nature and the New Yorker has, in the past, been marginal enough, but as you note, standards are constantly evolving. Personally, I can't see why any sane person would want a Wikipedia biography, but that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 21:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the complexities of notability, why this article exists, and whether it should or shouldn't, what about including the OP-ED(s) and Connolley's response(s) in the external link section? I suppose those links would fail the wp:external link criteria? Even with an wp:IAR interpretation? :) It still seems weird that so much of the article is based on his own writings and web activities while other opinions and perspectives on his work are excluded. But if that's the policy I guess it's best to obey, and there's no denying that the independent sources are opinion and not news. Oh well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether or not, or how or how not to, include Solomon's op-ed. I'll leave that to the regulars. :) I felt strongly about citing ArbCom as a reliable source for a BLP, that's all. MastCell ^Talk 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's sum this up. There are three articles sourced that are not directly connected to him by authorship or contribution of some kind. Of those three articles, as near as I can tell (I don't have a subscription to read two of them, so I am taking this from context), he is at most mentioned as an example. He is not properly a subject of the articles. There is one article of which he is the subject, but apparently that doesn't count because the author of the article doesn't like him, so it *obviously* must be excluded as an unreliable source. It is also factually incorrect, which is apparently something to be determined through original research. This is apparently OK in this instance and not elsewhere in wikipedia because - well, because. It can't even be mentioned that the accusations from the article have been raised, because apparently everyone is under the impression that reporting that someone made a potentially libelous accusation is, in itself, libel. Meaning someone better set about deleting such information found in entries like this one or particularly this one before it brings down Wikipedia. All four articles on the subject here discuss his role as an editor on wikipedia, and some sort of controversy or difficulty surrounding it. However, what negative information exists as to his activity on wikipedia is irrelevant as "no one outside this little bubble particularly cares whether William holds administrative rights on this website or not." Even if it is notable, it can't be sourced, because wikipedia is not to be trusted for information about itself.
So, apparently third party articles mentioning his wikipedia activity suffice to make the subject notable. However, information directly related to that activity can be excluded from the article because wikipedia activity is not notable.
Even if it is notable, it can't be sourced as bare facts directly from wikipedia because wikipedia is a primary source where facts about itself are concerned. This same exclusion, of course, does not apply to citing the subject's own page for information about himself, as that is just different. The Coton Parish Council website can be similarly cited as to who sits on the Council, as it, too, is different.
So, citing wikipedia as to who its administrators are, and whether they are still administrators, is prohibited as original research from a primary source. Citing the Coton Parish Council website as to who its members are, and whether they are still members is OK. Citing the Cambsgreen Green Party website for who its candidates are, and how that turned out, is similarly OK.
If anyone here still wonders why this is looked at as a joke of an article that amounts to an online resume for the subject, I really don't think it could be explained plainly enough to get through to you. --68.187.10.206 (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot this:

Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would amount to Wikipedia citing itself, a self-reference. As an exception, Wikipedia may be cited as a primary source (with caution) for information about itself, such as in articles about itself. --Wikipedia on sourcing itself

Not really sure what else that could mean aside from 'this argument is done'. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Spectator article

There is now an article about his Wikipedia tenure: Bethell, Tom (30 December 2009). "Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate". The American Spectator.. Even though judging from the Wikipedia article this seems to be a politically partisan publication, it is a sufficiently reliable source (in addition to the ArbCom case itself) for the desysop, and as regards relevance, it (together with the Solomon op-ed) confirms Mr. Connolley's status as a public figure for his participation in Wikipedia, at least among American conservatives. Based on this, I've re-added the dates of adminship.  Sandstein  14:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Spectator isn't reliable. Even if it was, the part you're using is from a quote from an Solomon Op-ed. -16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmoz (talk • contribs)

How is it not reliable? It seems to be a monthly magazine regularly published since 1967. And for the desysop, it is not citing the Solomon op-ed, it's citing the arbitration case.  Sandstein  16:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Sandstein here. It's not even that close of a call as to reliability. UnitAnode 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. We know the information is reliable, we have the Arbcom to prove it. Arzel (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• The Spectator Op-Ed/Editorial is not reliable for BLP information. While the Spectator might be reliable on other subject (i have no idea whether that is correct or not), editorials and other opinion articles are not reliable for biographical material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why do you think that the Spectator piece is an op-ed or editorial?  Sandstein  17:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)1st of all because of the way it is written. The author of the piece is referring to his own opinion about things ("I agree with just about everything that they say. But there is one problem that Mr. Wales does not go near"), and finally that is what most of the Special Report features of the AmSpec seem to be. (note that these seem only to be printed online - and not be part of the ink-publication itself) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed it's not even a close call. This is a partisan publication with a history of biased reporting. Lengths of publication has nothing to do with it, or do you accept Pravda or Neues Deutschland? Have you actually looked at The American Spectator? The Spectator is certainly less reliable that e.g. the Huff Post, which has been rejected as RS, let alone a RS for BLPs, a number of times. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Less reliable that HuffPo? Seriously, the lengths taken to hide this information are simply amazing. The Spectator is a published magazine, it is a reliable source. The information that is being relayed is KNOWN to be true. There are no WP:RS concerns. Arzel (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I get the distinct feeling that even if the WSJ or the NYT ran an article citing the arbcom decision, it wouldn't be considered reliable. This is more of the same, from the same cast of characters. The sooner the Arbcom sorts out this mess, and solves the ownership issues at the GW articles, the better off the project will be. UnitAnode 18:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  You would be entirely correct in assuming that an Opinion article in any of the mentioned sources would be unreliable to BLP material. A regular journalistic article is something else entirely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  For potentially controversial material, sure. For uncontroversial material, that is also verifiably true according to primary sources, you're absolutely incorrect. Op-eds are not automatically disqualified as RS's. UnitAnode 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  No. The keyword is not controversial material it is biographical material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, and for the record, this isn't even controversial material, that would trigger any BLP concerns. Loss of administrator tools isn't the same as saying he committed some crime or something. The bar for reliable-sourcing in the case of non-controversial (and proveably true) material isn't the same as that for more inflammatory claims. UnitAnode 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• This is all irrelevant debate tbh. Whether it comes from a reliable or unreliable source, (or laughingly, from a biased! source), the only way they are getting this info is the same way anybody else does, by looking at the diffs - which, for reasons no sane person understands, are in themselves not considered reliable source of the information they contain. It's absurd. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I still think the desysoping bit could go in. But the spectator quote is absolutely no good as a reliable source not least because it only refers to the desysop in quoting a comment added to another blog. Anyone who thinks that's better than a direct quote from WP has some strange values. --BozMo talk 20:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm completely unfamiliar with the Spectator as a magazine, but you make a good point by noting that the desysop is only referred to in a quote from a blog. But I agree with you with respect to your last sentence: I continue to believe that the ArbCom page alone is an adequate reliable source for the mere fact of the desysop, but I also put in the Spectator piece for the sake of those who appear to believe otherwise.  Sandstein  20:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Arbcom reference should be enough. However, it's becoming quite apparent that nothing is going to be enough, wherever it is sourced to, save if a major newspaper runs an above-the-fold story about it. As this won't happen, those looking to force it out of the article are setting up a de facto "heads-I-win-tails-you-lose" scenario. UnitAnode 20:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This is very hard to call. There are some credible voices asking for it out on principle (I've not seen ATren side with Stephan and Kim before). There are various (more but perhaps less established) voices asking for it in. I see Sandstein as the serious middle ground and am prepared to compromise to align with him. --BozMo talk 21:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

...not to mention the fact that at least I do not oppose the use of ArbCom for sourcing the mere fact of desysopping, for which it is reliable, if only per WP:IAR. I've said so at least twice. I do oppose a lengthy mentioning of ArbCom's various opinions per WP:PRIMARY and the fact that these statements are not published by a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with a sentence noting that he was desysopped on X-date, with the decision as the source for that simple fact. UnitAnode 21:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

How does this not just make perfect sense as an opposite-day thing? I already covered that under the "A Quick Question" heading. On opposite day articles, sources are not-sources and facts are not-facts. See this entry for a further understanding of the phenomenon at work here. --this entry am not posted by 70.243.153.138 (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Article probation

Please note that, by a decision of the Wikipedia community, this article and others relating to climate change (broadly construed) has been placed under article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for full information and to review the decision. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

I commented out the material about the ArbCom case because it's a self-published source, which is never allowed in BLPs, unless the author/publisher is the subject of the bio.

Do we have a source for his qualifications? The article implies that both his degrees are from Oxford, but is that right? If so, the first one is unlikely to be a B.A. I've changed it to M.A. in the infobox but we need to check it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at the previous discussion, in particular #Desysop and #Using_the_arbcom_ruling_as_a_source. There seems to be a reasonable consensus for using ArbCom as a source for the bare fact of desysoping, although several people are uneasy about it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No discussion on a talk page can overrule the BLP policy, Stephan. I did restore the material though, because I see there's an American Spectator article about it; it's on what they call their "blog," but it's not a personal blog because it's published by the Spectator -- see WP:V -- so it counts as an RS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've undone your edit. The American Spectator is not a reliable source. Seriously, please read the exiting discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Stephan, please, no self-published sources in BLPs. The policy is very clear on this: "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." [3]. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I had reverted to your version without the ArbCom source. We can debate this here. I understand the concern about using ArbCom as a source, I just think it's the least of several evils here. Linking a hit piece in an unreliable propaganda piece is unacceptable, however. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) But WP:V itself, in its subsection WP:CIRCULAR, states that "As an exception, Wikipedia may be cited as a primary source (with caution) for information about itself". An IP pointed this out a few sections above. I agree that the ArbCom report is much preferable as a source for the desysop to just the Spectator article.  Sandstein  13:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:V allows WP to be cited as a primary source in certain circumstances, but never as a source in a BLP, because it is self-published (unless the publisher is the BLP subject). I appeal to people editing here to make themselves familiar with the BLP policy, as it governs what may be added, and the kinds of sources that may be used. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to agree on talk that the Spectator article isn't an RS for a BLP, because it's a blog format, I have no problem with that. But you can't substitute the ArbCom decision as a source. This is one of the backbones of the BLP policy, that self-published sources can't be used. So it's either the Spectator as a source, or rewrite the sentence to remove the ArbCom issue entirely. Or find another source that mentions it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 13:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, are you seriously arguing that you believe the ArbCom case page is not a factually correct record of the ArbCom's decision to desysop William Connolley?  Sandstein  13:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• The Spectator is not a RS because it does not have "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy", but rather a reputation for biased reporting and paid-for opinions. That it's a blog is an additional technicality. The fact that at best it only repeats the original ArbCom source while adding its own spin also makes it worse than valueless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How about we stop reverting for a while and make a content RFC about (a) whether the desysop is at all encyclopedically relevant and (b) which if any of the two proposed sources, ArbCom and the Spectator, is acceptable?  Sandstein  13:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, you've reverted my edits twice now, both time doing a wholesale revert, including the copyediting, which I take it you don't object to. Could I ask that you restore that, please?

I'm having difficulty seeing the issue here. The arbitration pages are clearly self-published. Do either of you dispute that? Do either of you dispute that the BLP policy doesn't allowed self-published sources? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Slim, will you please take a closer look at the diffs? Both times I've reverted just the addition of the Spectator source to your last version before that, keeping all your other changes (or at least that's what I think I did). I also think I made this clear in the edit summaries, especially the second one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Aha...I failed to notice that that one edit also contained some minor copy-edits. Restored as far as applicable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, you reverted my copy-editing too. It's not a big deal; just unnecessary and a bit annoying. The bigger issue is why anyone would want to allow a self-published source in a BLP. Leave the material out entirely if there's no decent source for it -- it's not exactly a major issue. But if you allow one self-published source, you'll find yourself unable to argue against others. I see in the article's history that other reliable sources are being kept out for BLP reasons, yet a source that clearly violates BLP is being retained. The policy needs to be applied consistently. That's my only argument here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable sources have been kept out for BLP reasons? Maybe we have a different interpretation of what a RS is. Do you seriously claim that the Spectator quoting Solomon's clearly erroneous piece of excrement and linking to ArbCom is preferably to pure ArbCom? Note that I don't push for including ArbCom - I'm on the fence on that. But I understand the argument. The aim of BLP is to ensure correct and factual articles. There is no doubt that the ArbCom pages are a reliable source for ArbCom's decision. This is a reliable source, if a primary one, no matter how many technicalities it violates. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. (from WP:NOT). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Spectator and the National Post have both been kept out for BLP reasons, and for arguably good ones, because they contain factual errors, claims that anyone familiar with WP would know were false.

We try to avoid using primary sources in BLP, especially for anything contentious, for obvious reasons: if no reliable secondary source has been fit to discuss an issue, it's a form of OR to add it. But more importantly, we never ever use self-published sources in BLPS unless published or written by the subject himself, for all the obvious reasons. The ArbCom posts whatever it wants to on those pages, as does everyone else. There is no editorial or legal oversight, nothing.

Most importantly, the point of having policies is so that we don't have to argue these points from scratch every single time they come up. We ought to follow the policies, and if we don't like them, try to change them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I see your point as well. But indeed, we do have different interpretations of WP:RS. Neither the National Post Opinion Piece nor the Spectator article are reliable sources. The fact that they are chock full of errors and innuendo are symptoms of that, but they both fail WP:RS without even looking at the content. They are not reliable sources that have been kept out for other good reasons, they are not RS in the first place. And the quote above is from WP:NOT, which also is a policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you would get the idea that the National Post and American Spectator aren't generally speaking reliable sources. I agree that they're problematic in this case (arguably), but in general terms, they are fine. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got no beef the the NatPost per se, but the article in question is an opinion piece - see Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion. So it's not a RS for a statement of fact. The Spectator, on the other hand, is plainly not reliable, but publishes whatever its current paymasters direct it to publish. See e.g. Arkansas Project. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RS isn't policy. V is policy. There is nothing wrong with opinion pieces per se. Depending on context, they might be poor sources, but so might anything depending on context. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, if we want to go this route let's go this route.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties;

3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Once again, the ACTUAL rule

So unless ArbCom stating what ArbCom did somehow falls into one of these exceptions, it should not be kept out. The only possible response is to cite #2, and this is not a 'claim about [a] third part[y]', it's a simple report of what ArbCom did. Again, unless as someone mentioned above, the information from the local council website or the local political party website may also be kept out for the same reason. Stop this, please, this is getting really silly.--70.243.153.138 (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please note what you're quoting: so long as "it does not involve claims about third parties ..." This is about a third party, William Connolley. I repeat the BLP policy from above (my bold):

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). 'Self-published blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."

V and BLP are entirely consistent, so there's no point in trying to use one to kick a hole in the other. You will not find a content policy that allows you to use a self-published source for biographical material about a living person. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Read my whole post. It isn't a claim about a third party, it is a claim about ArbCom itself in relation to a third party. If your position were applied consistently, you would remove information sourced from the party website and the council website. There is no difference between the manner in which they are sourced and the manner in which ArbCom is sourced, as they are also 'self-published sources' within your definition. So why are you cherry-picking this specific violation of the policy and leaving the others intact? I know the answer, but indulge me with a response anyway. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article cover the desysop?

Do not cover the desysop

• In my opinion, there is no reliable source for including the desysop in this article. While no one doubts the accuracy of the ArbCom ruling (or the rights log entry, for that matter), that isn't the only function of the RS policy. Whether a fact has been published in a RS is an indicator of relevance to the subject; if the subject is covered in some detail, and a known fact is omitted, it's a sign that this fact is not considered relevant. Again, no reliable source has discussed the desysop - because, I suspect, its considered important only inside our little world. For this reason, I'm opposed to discussing the desysop in this biography. Nathan ^T 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose discussing it for the reasons outline by Nathan. Without a reliable secondary source, it's a form of OR to add it. I also think it could be argued that the American Spectator is a reliable source, but it's very borderline because it contains significant errors. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I would be hardpressed to agree that the American Spectator is a reliable source for disputed content on a biography of a living liberal - unless we state that Bill Clinton did coke with hookers? Hipocrite (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unless there are some reliable sources that cover it. While WP may be a micro-universe, it isn't the real world - and WP can't project importance of a subject into the real world. (which using the Arb decision as RS would do). If this is notable, then eventually some reliable source will pick it up. Sandsteins argument that we must mention it to "protect wikipedia" is an argument for chosing wikipedia as a concept over content, which (imho) is a slippery sliding slope. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose coverage. Whether or not WMC is currently a Wikipedia admin is not particularly relevant for the bio, unless it is something that is covered in multiple reliable sources. And even if sources do list him as an admin, the term "de-adminned" or "De-sysopped" is pejorative, and therefore not appropriate in a BLP. The most we might want to say would be like any other job change, such as "As of <date>, Connolley is no longer an administrator on Wikipedia," and leave it at that. Though my recommendation is that we don't bother mentioning at all, since it seems to be pretty much a non-event as far as the non-wiki world is concerned. --Elonka 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do not cover anything related to Wikipedia per WP:Navel gazing. This article has more written about his Wikipedia activities than the secondary sources combined. -Atmoz (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm in total agreement. This article should be nixed in its entirety, as the only thrid party coverage is solely about wikipedia activity. As the only notable material about this individual is only relevant to wikipedia itself, that is the only reasonable conclusion. I support Atmoz in calling for the deletion of this article. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  I'll kindly remind you not to put words in my mouth. -Atmoz (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  And I will direct you to your own point and its logical conclusion. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't strike me as all that important. His editing on Wikipedia is notable because it was covered by Nature. His being or not being an admin really isn't really that big a deal. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • His treatment at the hands of wikipedia is apparently notable enough to include the coverage from the New Yorker article. Why is that notable and this not notable? --70.243.153.138 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Because it is covered in a reliable source? :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
      • As is this. All the arguments that this is reliable source seem to be met with 'OK, but it's not notable.' All the arguments that it is notable are met with 'OK, but it isn't reliably sourced.' I am starting to see a pattern here. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. If and only if this part of his participation in WP becomes notable in the real world, we can include it; otherwise it's unsourced, self-referential and non-notable. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • 1. If this is self-referential, how is the other coverage of wikipedia activity not self-referential? The policy on that refers explicitly to mentioning wikipedia activity. Also, from "Writing about Wikipedia itself" under that policy:

The following examples show where such links can be useful:

• Articles where Wikipedia played a major role in the subject of the article, for example: Seigenthaler incident
• Articles about prominent people involved in Wikipedia, for example: Jimmy Wales
• Articles about Wikipedia
• Articles where Wikipedia is illustrative of the subject, for example: virtual community and encyclopedia

I think it is pretty obvious which of those it falls under, given that there is a section in the article dedicated to wikipedia activity. (Hint: look at the first one.)(Bigger hint: it's the first one.)

• 2. This is part-and-parcel of the discussion in the other sourced materials. Otherwise this article just endorses a singular POV of the subject as a victim. Again, you can't just keep yelling 'it's not notable' and then include the exact same topic as notable, with the only apparent difference being how favorably the subject is treated. Well you can, but expect that people are going to keep pointing it out. The issue of it being 'unsourced' is getting really, really tired - it has been explained ad nauseum why this is a perfectly good source. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • I can't respond on behalf of Guettarda (nor Juliancolton, to whom you previously posed the questions) and as a matter of practice I generally don't read other comments in RFCs before commenting myself, because it's better to come completely fresh to the topic. However the way I see it is this: the quote you give from Writing about Wikipedia itself is a guideline and not a policy, so we are not constrained invariably to follow them. The guideline also merely states that links "can be useful", not that they invariably are. We need to look deeper and examine all the circumstances. In my view the debate about Wikipedia and experts is relevant here and legitimate to be included, and is a major role in the subject of the article. However, I don't believe that there is such a "major role" in the specific issue of the article subject's status as an administrator. This is because the subject's administrative activities were not immediately relevant to his work as a climate scientist. His status as an administrator is not a "major role in the subject of the article". On your part 2, I made no comment directly on sourcing issues for the subject's status as administrator because I had already decided that the subject is not significant, so the question of sourcing does not arise. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The quote I gave was in direct response to people calling this 'self-referential', which you did as well, as if that is a reason in itself to keep this out. That guideline for applying the policy looks to be crafted specifically to prevent the abuse of that rule to keep things out, when the article is already about wikipedia in the first place. Have a look at the actual article here. Try a quick word count. Coverage of wikipedia activity: 190 words. Coverage of role as a climate scientist: 178 words. I'd say that wikipedia plays a large role in this topic, wouldn't you? So even if you are already discussing the subject in the context of editing wikipedia, and more to the point discussing the particulars of punishment for activity on wikipedia, you would argue that the subject's removal as an administrator is not a part of that? The article is specifically discussing the subject and his involvement with conflicts on wikipedia, and his thoughts and frustrations with the process. Please explain how his removal as an admin for this same sort of conflict is not directly related to these things. I could cut-and-paste again the explanation elsewhere why the *only* notable thing about the subject is this activity, since he doesn't seem to come anywhere close to satisfying the policy for notability of academics, but I'll pass. As for comment 2, I included it because I could hear you thinking it. Yep, right through my net connection. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The article should restrict itself only to the revert restriction having been applied and then removed and the connected debate about experts on Wikipedia - a fascinating debate in which the subject of this biography is often cited, and on which there are good sources. I don't think it should mention anything else about the subject's work on Wikipedia partly because it's a self-reference to be avoided, but mostly because it's not directly relevant to the reasons why the subject is notable, and it really isn't significant enough to be mentioned. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (in other words, per Guettarda but with slightly more words in it)

• Shorten the part about Wikipedia editing in general. Just mentioning that he writes for Wikipedia and which subjects should be enough. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As Elonka and KDP above. Dayewalker (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per all of the above opposes. This is about his notable scientific accomplishments. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What, again, are these 'notable accomplishments' that satisfy WP:PROF? --24.255.184.103 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Cover the desysop

• The question for this section is one of sourcing -- if you believe that we should discuss the desysop in the article, which source is appropriate? Nathan ^T 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• If it's included, we can't use the ArbCom, a self-published source, as a reference. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Arbcom ISN'T self-published; it's not like arbcom are *paying* to publish. Arbcom is self-published in the exactly the same sense that a lawcourt judge's opinions are self-published. i.e. they're not.- Wolfkeeper 20:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support just including the fact of the desysop sourced to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley. As I said above, the desysop is encyclopedically relevant because the subject has been characterized by recent published (if probably ideologically biased) media sources, The Spectator and National Post, as well as in numerous blogs, precisely in his capacity as a WP admin and has thus become a public figure for his WP admin activity. As to sourcing, I believe that the prohibition on self-published sources for WP:BLPs does not exist because they such sources are a priori wrong (they may be right or wrong just as other sources are). Rather, it exists because we are not in a position to evaluate the reliability of self-published sources and so we have made a (correct) policy decision to exclude them as a general precaution. But this is not a problem in this specific case: We as veteran Wikipedians are very well able to evaluate the reliability of an arbitration case page, at least insofar as that we can make sure that what the case page says is what the Committee did indeed decide. In other words, the ArbCom page is a primary source, just like a court decision or a law, that can (and should only) be used as a source for its own contents, including in BLPs. To put it yet another way, the purpose of WP:BLP is to ensure that articles are factually correct. Since nobody here can in good faith doubt that the arbitration case page correctly documents the desysop of William Connolley, any interpretation of WP:BLP that would prevent us using the ArbCom decision as a source is wrong, or at least contrary to the purpose of the BLP policy, and should be ignored because it hinders us from writing a complete and correct article about a (presumably) notable subject.  Sandstein  15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• (two edit conflicts) If Connolley himself as written about it on his website or blog, we can use that as the source, per BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I find myself in the odd position of agreeing (again!) with Sandstein. Not including it, for whatever wikilawyerly reasons can be come up with, is just beyond silly. It makes the project look rather ludicrous, at best, willfully ignorant at worst. It's beyond debate that WMC was deadminned. We have a primary source that proves it beyond question (the Arbcom decision) and secondary sources (of somewhat dubious neutrality) that mention it as well. As such, to have an article on WMC as part of the project that doesn't at least mention it doesn't make sense at all. UnitAnode 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support He is primarily notable for being a former climate scientist who used wikipedia to further the goals of GW movement - this is the context in which he was mentioned in the press. His science is not notable. As for ArbCom, we can and should use it as the primary source, since this is THE source for this information and there can never be a more reliable source than this. Self-published policy certainly does not apply here, such an interpretation would be absurd and contrary to the purpose of the policy - which is ensuring the reliability of information. Sergiacid (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • For clarity, how did you find this discussion, and what are your other accounts? Hipocrite (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Here is the subject mentioning desysop on his blog so that can also be used as a source also: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/12/i_am_all_powerful_part_2.php and here is a quote of the relevant passage: "oddly, Beany doesn't seem to have noticed that I lost my admins rights a while back (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley) but it probably wouldn't have fitted into that story very well. Nor, come to that, my recent failed bid for arbcomm." As for your questions I've read about this person on the web and got interested and followed the story here, not sure why it matters. This is the only account I use with wiki now. Sergiacid (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Please list your earlier accounts. Hipocrite (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I used Enemyunknown some years ago. Now, what does it have to do with anything here and what are you other accounts? Sergiacid (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please keep this honest and replace 'for clarity' with 'for purposes of ad hominem attacks unrelated to this discussion.' TIA. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• If this article is to exist at all, and it shouldn't, this should be in. It has been pointed out repeatedly that covering this guy as a victim of the wikipedia process is far from a 'balanced' entry, that if you are going to cover him at all you need to cover that which third parties have found relevant (which is solely wikipedia activity), that there is no distinction between him and the countless thousands of academics save for his wikipedia activity, that there is other material in the article similarly sourced that no one seems to have a problem with, and generally that this thing seems to be a nice little advertisement this guy can show off. There has yet to be one good argument against including this information that wouldn't, if applied consistently, end in the whole article, or at least other large chunks of it, getting the boot. Yet here is this argument raging on. Now it just looks like people want to push a POV by keeping this article up and excluding anything negative concerning the subject from it. It's even locked now to keep that information out. When did wikipedia and conservapedia merge? --70.243.153.138 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense. He also is notable as a scientist - with the BAMS publication on global cooling, which has topped download lists for months, and publications in Science (journal), he has made significant contributions to his field. See WP:PROF#1. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read the actual policy, I am curious as to how a couple journal articles and a heavily downloaded article fits under *any* of the examples given in the policy for #1. The examples make it clear that the work needs to be recognized more highly than level of publication or distribution, so the whole 'heavily downloaded' bit doesn't really help. The word is 'impact', not 'contribution.' In other words, recognition from others in the field beyond mere failure to reject his work outright. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the actual policy refers outright to impact recognized through heavily-cited work, or academic honors for that work. Not just having a lot of people read it. Publication in prestigious journals is specifically mentioned as rising only to the level of a 'contributing factor,' not a reason in itself to consider the person notable. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So, having recognized the "contributing actor", do you now agree that his scientific work contributes to his notability? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't say as I can find the part where I argued that it didn't. The fact that he gets out of bed and does anything at all 'contributes' to his notability. The only major recognition he has outside of it, however, is as a wikipedia editor. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support The desysop is a fact, and has been accurately reported in the media: here and here. Ergo, open and shut case. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is ridiculous, Arbcom's decisions are not self-published in the sense of WP:RS. They are not published in any open forum, their articles containing their decisions are tightly controlled, only arbcom can post there. They're not paying to post, and their decisions are reliable sources about what happened and why. Arbcom's previous decisions have been quoted by reliable sources, which confers notability.- Wolfkeeper 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - using only his self-published source to reference it. And don't put much weight on the issue either. Basically, I support a very brief sentence along the lines of "Connolley was a sysop on Wikipedia, but has since lost those priveledges". DigitalC (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like there are 6 who support inclusion (Sandstein, Michael C. Price, Wolfkeeper, UnitAnode, 70.243.153.138 and me), 6 who oppose (Elonka, Atmoz, Guettarda, Juliancolton, Sam Blacketer, Apoc2400) and 3 who oppose unless there is a reliable source(Nathan, SlimVirgin, Kim D. Petersen), but sine there are very reliable sources - first and foremost ArbCom itself - it is THE most reliable source on the matter, a more reliable source simply cannot exist, then there is subject's own blog whose reliability I think is beyond question and finally there are press articles three examples of which are linked below. So do those 3 editors support based on the sources? Why the information should be included:

• The subject is not notable as an ex-scientist, there are thousands of scientists equally or more prolific then him yet they don't have their own pages. The subject is only notable because he used wikipedia to push one point of view on anthropogenic global warming - this is the context in which he is mentioned in the media.
• Currently the article portrays him as a victim when in fact he has abused his administrative privileges to the point of being demoted so he is clearly not without guilt himself. Unless the information is included the article is not neutral.
• His demotion has been correctly referenced in multiple sources, not including it will corroborate the criticism that wikipedia has an agenda here.

Sources:

• ArbCom
• Subject's Blog 1 Subject's Blog 2
• spectator.org
• nationalpost.com
• blogs.telegraph.co.uk

Sergiacid (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources for articles about living people. And we can't references ourselves. Guettarda (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources authored by the subject are *explicitly* allowed in WP:BLP. Also, as has been explained ad nauseum - including citation to the relevant policies and guidelines - yes, yes you can reference wikipedia. Per wikipedia rules. For this very sort of situation. Any objections based on what the rules actually say? --24.255.184.103 (talk) 04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Semantic complaint

• The headings of this discussion are potentially misleading. I eventually figured out we're talking about "cover" in the sense of "treat," "include," or "write about". However, cover can also be taken to mean "suppress," "bury," or "censor". That is, those who might be favor of not covering Connolley's desysop in his WP bio might themselves be accused (wrongfully or otherwise) of covering they desysop. Just a thought.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I'd briefly waffled on which word to use, but it looks like everyone so far has understood my meaning and I'm hesitant to change it at this point. Nathan ^T 21:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No opinion but BLP

I don't give a hoot what you do or do not cover on this article which should have been deleted ages ago. If anything is to be covered it must use reliable sources only and follow WP:BLP to the letter. Blogs are not acceptable. Gossip articles are not acceptable. Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the heart of the issue (I agree with you, by the way, about the subject's lack of sufficient notability), is whether or not the Arbcom decision (and the veracity of the fact that he was desysopped) is enough for inclusion. I say, per COMMONSENSE and all that, that not having that in the article (which admittedly, shouldn't exist but does) makes Wikipedia look quite, well, silly. UnitAnode 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
• So why do we retain this travesty? David Boothroyd. Hipocrite (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but color me a bit confused by your having pointed to a deleted article. I mean, I know the backstory quite well, but what has that to do with this situation? UnitAnode 18:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • WMC is less notable than David Boothroyd. David Boothroyd had far more relibly sourced articles about his defrocking. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't we deal with the pragmatism of what to do since this article does, in fact, exist? I don't disagree with anything you've typed above, but I do disagree with how you seem to be applying it to the situation at hand, on a purely pragmatic level. UnitAnode 18:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I was headed to the article to {{prod}} it but it got locked for some reason. There are other living people with articles who have been sanctioned by ArbCom. If ArbCom is reliable here, they are reliable there. I don't think we should be sourcing negative content about living people to the online arms of dicey (and factually inacurate) rags like the Spectator and The National Post. Hipocrite (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With the bio having survived 4 AfD's (+ one joke one) do you really think that prod would have been accepted? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully. Stranger things have happened. Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, articles that have previous survived AfD may not be PROD'd. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

National Post is a rag? It is one of the top newspapers in Canada. That said, the blog of the national post is probably best not used to source a BLP. DigitalC (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read up on the National Post, I would have to agree that it is not a rag. That would be much too kind as a description. Fox News has plenty of fans in the US, but it is a pretty poor source. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete the Article

• Delete or include desysop and host of references in media regarding the damage done to Wikipedia This is a person of no notability outside wikipedia except amongst the small group of people with whom he coordinates edits to Wikipedia and so really who cares what the article says? The only notability this individual has after googling his name is with climategate/wikipedia where he is becoming notable for the harm he has done to the reputation of Wikipedia. Isonomia (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Links

• Telegraph
• Others[4][5][6]
• And many many more!Isonomia (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the term reliable source? A user comment on an open blog? Really? And no matter how often you link to Delingpole's incompetent reiteration of Solomon's flawed nonsense, it does not improve it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Calling Delingpole incompetent and Solomon flawed is a personal attack. I remind you that these articles are under probation. Arzel (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

So am I allowed to say that Genghis Khan wasn't a peace-maker? He doesn't edit WP either. --BozMo talk 16:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not only does WP:NPA not apply, I've not even made statements about the two writers personally, only about their work. And I stand by those - they are easily verifiable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to edit here. WP:BLP applies to all sections. and Khan isn't alive. Arzel (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please try to keep your assertions straight. First you accused him of "personal attacks." Now you're accusing him of violating WP:BLP. What, exactly, do you think he did wrong. Be as clear as possible. Hipocrite (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be lost, this is the talk page for the article on William Connolley. Judging from your comment, I believe you are looking for these two articles. Thanks. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your list includes a blog that refers to wikipedia as 'mealy-mouthed', a website called liberalwhoppers.com, and a comment on a blog. I think this page should be gone, too. Still, have you even read anything else in this discussion or did you just come here and blindly let your keyboard vomit all over the page? This page needs to be gone because it is a ridiculous extension of group ego, not because it has turned the flat-earth crowd against wikipedia. Please, please - take your 'help' somewhere else. Some of us have a valid point and don't need this sort of thing reflecting poorly on our efforts. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello all

I came to visit, because rumour told me that you wanted me to say I've been de-sysopped (forgive me: I've deliberately not read or contributed to the talk here; if this issue has been resolved then ignore me). If that is the question, you can have http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/a_childs_garden_of_wikipedia_p.php William M. Connolley (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. Despite the specific approval of such a citation as a reliable source, this seems to have been completely ignored when mentioned before. Apparently because the person who mentioned it once posted under a different login five years ago. Nothing to see here. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Being bold, I guess

Well, it's been established that the desysop has been discussed extensively outside of wikipedia, given the exhaustive list of links to blogs. It in fact appears to have been much more widely discussed than the existing content on the subject's WP activity. Which means that if that belongs, this belongs. It's been established that there are reliable sources within the definitions given by wikipedia policies and guidelines, regardless of whether you want to accept it. The arbcom ruling is a 'self-published' source, which per WP:V may be used for information about itself. I'm not terribly sure what else that could include if it did not include whether or not they pulled the subject's admin status. Even if you want to disagree with that, the subject discussed this event on his own blog, again a self-published source which may be relied on for information about the source itself. This falls under the same section of WP:V. I'm adding this back in, with the links mentioned above. Not one objection so far has been legitimately tied to any WP rule. Anyone who wants to delete it again, feel free. Just realize that you are deleting it out of personal resentment of the information, rather than any adherence to WP rules or policies about notability or reliability of sources. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

National Post Article

I included a paragraph from a directly relevant, but unsympathetic, National Post article today. It was promptly removed. Why does anyone have the right to delete references they disagree with, or are uncomfortable with? Is Wikipedia the Soviet Union???? Count Spockula (talk) 01:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Look more closely at your reference, it is a blog. Now read WP:RS and WP:BLP. Negative (or any) content that is not reliably sourced will be deleted. A blog is not a reliable source. Also check the history as it seems that blog ref has been removed before. Vsmith (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess there needs to be a little modernizing addendum to Godwin's Law. Here is a pretty good explanation. Note the applicability to "websites... which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Sounds to me like that just might refer to low-fact-content opinions found in blogs. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it true this guy "cooked the books" of wikipedia to make climate change look more legitimate ?

Why is it that scandals are described in great detail about other people, but not this one ?

I also heard people get blocked or permabanned for making statments like this. Is this true ?

99.137.251.249 (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Jonny Quick

No. Because there is no such scandal. Possibly, depending on how persistently they violate WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

[ WP:BLP violation redacted by Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) ].

How ironic it is that the above comment was removed by a regular contributor here out of hand. There's no big conspiracy here folks, but there is certainly an appearance of POV. I don't know about bans or the like resulting from such discussion, but it does result in a lot of activity that is long on handwaiving and threats of bans, but alarmingly short on substantial response to concerns. This talk page, and the article it supports, are not exactly shining examples of quality. This sort of thing is exactly why there is such concern over the portrayal of the article's subject as some sort of victim of WP process. The process seems to have done a lot more to protect him (and the inclusion of an article portraying him as a victim) than it has done to harm him. --24.255.184.103 (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP, our policy on biographies of living people. We do not allow negative content on living people unless it is meticulously sourced to reliable sources. This applies to all pages, both in article space and elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your apparent confirmation of the validity of my comment, although I am sorry you could not appreciate my point. Any interested parties, please see this diff, as apparently this concern is not allowed to be aired on the relevant talk page. I am sorry to see that WP:BLP has been extended to any concerns with a living WP editor, or in fact any associates who contribute to their bio article. I suppose meaningful debate over editor behavior has been brought to a close. I apologize if I have misunderstood the nature of discussion on conservapedia wikipedia.--24.255.184.103 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know why this article ["How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles"] http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx from the Nationa Post is not discussed in the Wikipedia page of WIlliam Connolley ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.76.73 (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable blog. See above. . . dave souza, talk 12:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do award winning blogs count?Jprw (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Got a reliable source for that claim? Wotsup anyway? ;-P . . dave souza, talk 11:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Date format in the article

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic maybe the article should use British dates like "(born 12 April 1964)" since this article has strong ties to Britain? On the other side, the first date used in the article was US centric [7]. Nsaa (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm entirely fine with either, as long as we use it consistently. When I was in school, I learned "April 12th, 1964", which seems to have fallen out of favor anyways... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, done it. Nsaa (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Press – Mention of Solomons article in the top of this talk page

I see that the {{Press}} template was removed by Hipocrite (talk · contribs). I inserted it again, since it seems to be not a valid removal. From the history I see that this piece has been here since 2008-05-04T02:11:18 (add press reference), added by Samw (talk · contribs). I think the backgrund for this removal was it's implication in another discussion going on here for the moment Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Comment_by_Dmcq. Nsaa (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's a blog posting, not by the subject of the article, it's hardly "press coverage" and fails BLP. As discussed earlier. . dave souza, talk 12:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the background for the removal is you keep finding bad talk page headers and pointing me at them. Stop reinserting bad talk page headers. Hipocrite (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"and fails BLP. As discussed earlier. .". Please show me where? Not just state what I see as an false claim. Removed again by Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) with the comment Undid revision 345389507 by Nsaa (talk) Undo, not a reliable source, violates WP:BLP. Nsaa (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"and fails BLP. As discussed earlier." (give me the diffs that can support the bolding. Nsaa (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Raised at WP:BLPN

Wikipedia:BLPN#Talk:William_Connolley. Nsaa (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Laughably unbalanced

Why is it that the subject's meager (very meager!) accomplishments as a scientist are puffed up out of all proportion but the controversy over his nefarious role as gatekeeper, bully and enforcer of man-made global warming POV (for example, discussed in Canada's National Post) are kept out? --109.250.81.115 (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read the rest of this discussion page before posing your question. We established months ago that WP:BLP prohibits any discussion of criticism of popular wikipedians. Apparently even posing this sort of question is a WP:BLP violation, as seen elsewhere above. So, you know, watch out.--24.255.183.62 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't to be used to discredit, defame, or ridicule any living person we disagree with. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not a helpful comment. Please keep your personal animosities out of your article work. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I won't let someone try to do that to this article as was tried to be done to that one. Same principle, two different articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Qualifications

I requested this back in January, [8] then forgot about it. Do we have a source saying he has a BA/MA and DPhil from Oxford, and if so which college(s) he was at, and when? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no source for that statement provided. There is a source for a paper which the article says earned WMC these qualifications, but not actual proof of that or the qualifications themselves. I added a couple fact tags to the background section. There is also no source for the following statement

"Since direct observations of Antarctic sea ice are sparse, satellite Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSMI) based observations are used instead. Inconsistency in sea ice predictions from the various GCM algorithms in use makes verification of GCM output difficult."

which doesn't seem strictly necessary for a BLP anyway. Weakopedia (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, without much effort I notice the article does give a sufficient reference for his DPhil (which is published by Oxford University per first reference) to be readily findable. So the DPhil is well sourced in a checkable fashion (not online). The date of 1989 is also given. Checking degrees is not hard to do if this is really in doubt (but he would not get in to a DPhil without at least a 2.1 from a proper unversity). --BozMo talk 09:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people have Phd's, Master's Degrees, etc. Does this smarm actually make someone notable? Notable based on this? Egads: editing WP makes one "notable"... Doc9871 (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you found sufficient references for the qualifications within the article, could you list them here? I am not sure which bit you mean. Or you could bypass that and just fix the citation tags with references. Also, is there a need for the bit I pasted above, and if so, a reference. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

His thesis is already cited:

Connolley, William M. (1989), Preconditioning of iterative methods for linearized or linear systems. — D. Phil Thesis, Oxford University Numerical Analysis Group

--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Note that there is no citation tag next to his thesis, but a reference number. This section is about the qualifications, which the article states that he received "for his work on numerical analysis", the implication being that the thesis is not the actual qualification but that the qualification came as a result of the thesis. So yes, the thesis is sourced, I said that above when I wrote "There is a source for a paper which the article says earned WMC these qualifications". However the citation tags are next to the actual qualifications. If you have a reference for either of those it would be most helpful. Weakopedia (talk) 10:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've referenced the Oxford library record of the thesis and publication - also noted the supervisor and the oxford record (and where to get it - physical address). for the thesis/Dr.Phil. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that a thesis is a document submitted in support of candidature for a degree or professional qualification presenting the author's research and findings. It is not, however, evidence of a qualification. I'll just re-add that citation tag until you find a source that show not just the work that was presented as a thesis, but the eventual qualifications gained. Thanks. Weakopedia (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as i know a failed dissertation is not admitted a British library reference number. But what do i know? Apparently the level of documentation required here is above and beyond what we normally require even for a BLP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It helps when BLP's are actually about truly notable people. Everyone knows who Mel Gibson is. William Connolly? A blogger with a PhD; awesome! How many more articles can we create? The possibilities are endless... Doc9871 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well - i think you have made your point. Perhaps you may want to consider an AfD? (do take in mind that there have been several failed ones already). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not filing an Afd. Swelled heads can always create articles about themselves and pretend they are notable here. I can't change that. Who's going to remember their notability in the long run? Only time will tell... Doc9871 (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you should stop that line of argumentation - since it is against talk page policy - WP is not a forum for general discussion. (just as a note: This article was not created by WMC - in fact the person who created the article, could very well be called a protagonistantagonist of WMC's). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Doc9871, your contributions to this section of the talk page seem to be less than helpful. Wikipedia is not the place to make personal attacks on other editors — even ones who are the subject of biographical articles. Be aware that this article and talk page are under probation, and you are expected to be even more careful than usual to remain calm, cool, and civil. (Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation for details.)

Further, your attack seems somewhat off the mark. William Connolley did not create this article.. It was created by Ed Poor in 2003, and Dr. Connolley took no position on whether or not the article should be deleted when so nominated in early 2005. Dr. Connolley didn't even edit the article until after the AfD, when he provided a photograph, links to his websites, and a list of publications: [9]. He has made no edits to the article in 2010, 2009, or 2007, and his lone edit in 2008 removed a miscategorization that identified him as a 'global warming critic' (a category that was, in any event, deleted in its entirety shortly after its creation).

Finally, comparisons with the fame of Hollywood actors seem specious, unless it is your contention that only people who receive that level of public attention ought to be included in Wikipedia. (I daresay that many non-U.S. presidents and prime ministers get less press than Mel Gibson, and I'm sure that even Nobel Laureates in the sciences fail the clear that bar. Without looking at our articles, can you tell me who Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and John Bardeen are?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Redux

The reason I have removed the citation needed tags on whether or not William Connolley received degrees from the University of Oxford are as follows: The verifiability policy tells us to cite what is challenged or likely to be challenged, not simply everything we possibly can. WMC has made a photograph of his DPhil available[10] and his doctoral thesis is available online. In addition, if one truly wishes to verify it without trusting WMC in the slightest, the University of Oxford http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/schools/degrees/verification.shtml has a procedure] for that. Therefore, I submit that when one can find out whether the information in the article is true so easily, there is no necessity for the {{fact}} tags. NW (Talk) 09:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with your rationale.

The UniOxf "will respond to requests for information on educational attainments from employers or prospective employers or from other educational institutions, funding bodies or recognised voluntary organisations". The majority of Wikipedians will not be employers of WMC, or an educational institution, funding body or voluntary organisation. Therefore your submission that "one can find out whether the information in the article is true so easily" is obviously quite false, and your addition in no way helps the general Wikipedia audience. You have also not checked it yourself, so your original research doesn't go far enough to allow you to speak with any authority.

WMC has provided not one, but two copies of his "qualifications" - one is obviously photoshopped. When the only source you have for information that has already been challenged, not awaiting challenge, is a self published photo from a set of photos that contains obvious forgeries then you really should be wondering if you have understood that policy on verifiability you referenced.

This is a 'problem article' and as such it is important that all information in it is cited - and if you cannot do so, the obvious question is, why is this information so notable that you have to insert it without a source? BLP isn't just there to suppress 'bad information' but allow uncited 'good information' through. And the policy on notability should show you that if you really can't just find a source saying "WMC has these qualifications" then that information isn't important enough to go into the article.

I think you have made a mistake in your addition to the article, and removal of the tags. You have failed to provide a reliable secondary source to establish either verifiability or notability. And I would note that until a few days ago you didn't even know what qualifications WMC had, you had to go asking. I would note that your original removal of the tags was accompanied by a somewhat pointy edit summary, and I would note that it is probably best in future to not jump right in on articles that are under probation but first contribute to the tralkpage discussion - that's first, not last. I'm removing the offending paragraph until you actually find a source. Cheers. Weakopedia (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As proven on so many CC probation articles, the biggest team wins, and with the least discussion. Weakopedia (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Biographical articles commonly include the subject's educational background, particularly if their notability is related to academic pursuits. Demanding a "reliable secondary source" mentioning those credentials is misguided, and would have far-reaching implications if applied broadly across our biographies. It appears that several independent sources refer to William as "Dr. Connolley", which seems to support the fact that he has received a doctorate.

As an aside, could you provide a courtesy link to the set of images in which you imply that William has "forged" his credentials? I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. And since you're citing the letter of BLP to exclude mention of a degree which no one seriously seems to doubt has been awarded, it seems the spirit BLP would demand a bit of care in implying that people have falsified their credentials. MastCell ^Talk 16:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You didn't check before saying that did you? Which in good faith you probably should have done. DSC_5009-doctoral-certificate-faked. It seems in fact like the standard for BLP varies according to various factors that some people have already been sanctioned for - I shall unwatch the article and let you all get on with improving the encyclopedia, in this case forcing unsourced material into your friends BLP (oh, with the reliable source that someone once called him 'doctor', way to encourage verifiability and stability). Weakopedia (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the British Antarctic Survey could be called a reliable source Dr William Connolley / Senior Scientific Officer / Climate Modeller / Physical Sciences Division mark nutley (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the information about his degrees, as I see no legitimate reason to question them at all. As this article is under probation, I recommend that Weakopedia be blocked if he does this again. The protestations he is making are so far from reasonable that it is hard to imagine how they do not constitution precisely the kind of disruption that probation is designed to avoid.

As a part of that restoration, I removed the note which explains how to check with Oxford University - even that gives rise to a suspicion in the mind of the reader that the credentials have been seriously questioned by someone.

I recommend that if Weakopedia wishes to challenge the credentials that he go to Oxford University and go through the process to find out - and if you find out anything negative, I'm quite sure you can find a reliable source to publish it.

But otherwise, this is just too ridiculous to permit to continue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the lead.

I have updated the lead to reflect the fact that he has announced his departure from "the climate profession in general." I have also added to his list of notable accomplishments the fact that he is best known in the media as a Wikipedia contributor for his work on the climate change and global warming articles, and that he is a retired climate professional as this is likely his next most notable attribute in the media. --ClimateOracle (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq has reverted my changes with the edit summary: "rv SPA ClimateOracle: obviously articles should not focus on Wikipedia activities; need consensus to change tone of lead".

The article SHOULD mention that he is best known for his contributions to Wikipedia as determined by the mainstream sources. This is probably the most widely discussed aspect of the man so to leave it out violates NPOV and UNDUE.

As for needing consensus to change the tone of the lead, no not really. These changes haven't changed the tone of anything. --ClimateOracle (talk) 07:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please reveal your other accounts, thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to disrupt the conversation. Address the points, not the editor. --ClimateOracle (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have cautioned ClimateOracle about the use of undisclosed alternate accounts to edit articles covered by a general probation. If a suitable disclosure of his previous account(s) is not forthcoming, then he should avoid editing in controversial areas. In the absence of such a disclosure, further editing of climate articles may be grounds for a permanent block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have responded in the edit summary on my talk page. Now, can we get back to the content rather than discussing me, the editor? --ClimateOracle (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a bit, my reasoning for making this change mirrors the reasoning presented here. Connolley is best known in the mainstream media sources for his contributions to Wikipedia for which he has attained some level of celebrity. I doubt that anyone other than a small group of climate researchers are familiar with the work from his former career in the climate field and I further doubt that anyone knows him as a systems engineer which is just a bit of puffery in this instance. He's a numerical analyst. Does anyone disagree with this reasoning?

Also, that discussion resulted in the article being tagged as having a POV problem. Does anyone object to my tagging this article for the same reasons? --ClimateOracle (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As a sock puppet, you should have been blocked hours ago. Do not edit this article or this talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have evidence that I am a sock puppet, please bring it forward. Otherwise you are being uncivil and this page in on probation. Your bad faith assumptions are not appreciated. --ClimateOracle (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the writing and editing section it is almost entirely discussing his work here on Wikipedia. The lead should summarize the content of the article but this aspect is not currently mentioned. Should this oversight not be corrected? --ClimateOracle (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, your unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry are a clear breach of wp:agf and wp:civil Until such a time as a CU is done to show if this guy is a sock and do not throw accusations around. mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark, you are wrong. CU is not the only way to identify socks. It's a very reliable tool for positive confirmation, but its neither all-powerful nor universally done. In this case it's obvious from the edits that this is not a new user. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

He may have just been an ip user for a while, the automatice assumption that it is a sock breaks agf, a CU should be done and if no evidence s there then that should be that mark nutley (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion page is riddled with evidence of the real POV here. First we have this lengthy battle just to include information on the only arguably notable aspect of this subject's life. Now, with this information finally included to begin offsetting the general 'Love Song for Nobody Important' vibe otherwise present in this article, and the article itself standing as the best evidence for the real source of any significance attributable to the subject, the response to anyone pointing this out is just a quick ad hominem kneejerk. I'm not going to stoop to that level. I'm stooping much lower, actually:

Editor: "We need to bring the lead for this article in line with its contents."

WP: "You're just a sock puppet!"

Editor: "The lead gives too little weight to the information in the largest section of the article. It's not balanced."

WP: "That's just the kind of talk I'd expect out of a sock puppet!"

Editor: "It doesn't make any sense to have an article's content reflect one thing and the its lead another. It makes the whole thing look cobbled-together and amateurish."

WP: "You're amateurish!"

-Scene-

Does anyone have any explanation as to why changing the lead is the wrong thing to do? Things that don't amount to "because I don't like the people who want to change the lead"? The only details in the article that have any significance to anyone, outside of a tiny community of scientists, are not even hinted at in the lead. It's like having an article on Jimmy Carter with a lead that only discusses his peanut farming. --69.29.15.242 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See the "This article has been placed on article probation..." box at the top of this page. That box indicates this topic is subject to POV edits and trolling. Accordingly, not much latitude is provided for general opinions; if you have a precise recommendation, please make it and provide a policy-based reason. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And you may see the contributions by ClimateOracle above, seeing as that is what he did - suggested a specific thing to be added and gave an explanation as to why. You don't even have to go all the way to the top of the page. Or, for that matter, you can look at what I typed, which requires you to travel an even shorter distance up the page, for your convenience. I am suggesting that as "[t]he only details in the article that have any significance to anyone, outside of a tiny community of scientists, are not even hinted at in the lead," this information should be added, just as ClimateOracle has suggested. I'd be even more specific, but I wouldn't want to draw any accusations of sock-puppetry; that seems to be the go-to response on here when someone doesn't have an explanation for why someone is wrong, but wants them to be wrong anyway. Also - I love your edit summary: "discussion be on topic." I guess I accidentally hopped over to the talk page for the article "ClimateOracle is a Sock-Puppet," since you don't seem to have any problem with Hipocrite ignoring a suggestion to improve the article in favor of posting conclusory statements about other editors' accounts and/or the weight problems of their mothers. --69.29.15.242 (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, here is a reason - the article is, on my screen, 27 lines of text long. Bear in mind that on my screen the lead, background and political activity sections have the infobox down the side and therefore those sections contain less text per line than the writing and editing section - although we shall ignore that now for the sake of comparison.

The background section has 9 lines (mostly unsourced), the political activity section 2. Then we have the writing section - 13 lines, containing references to such publications as Nature and the New Yorker.

Now look at the 3 line lead and how it represents those 13 out of the remaining 24 lines - 13/24 remember, more than half the article, not even considering that the writing section contains almost twice as much text per line as the other sections.

"WMC is a ... writer, and blogger on climate science"

The lead section of this article does not represent the contents of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.". Are there any objections to modifying the lead section of this article, in line with Wikipedia policy, to summarize the contents of the article? Weakopedia (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections, are there any suggestions as to how the lead may be rewritten to neutrally describe the entire article? Weakopedia (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "describe the entire article" - the lede should represent the WP:WEIGHT of each item in correspondence to the import in Connolleys life [ie. the article contains quite a bit of navel-gazing by focus on Wikipedia, which is probably out of proportion to its import in Connolleys life]. How about suggesting? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that the navel-gazing is important if it is large portion of the coverage that WMC has received in reliable secondary sources, regardless of how important it may be to the person behind the coverage. Basically, if it was notable to be in the article, it deserves mention in the lead. Or removal from the article if inappropriate. I can certainly work on a suggestion, it might be helpful if others did also, as there are obviously enough people watching this page. Weakopedia (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Allemagne douze points

Voila de:William Connolley --Polentario (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)