User talk:William M. Connolley

File:800px-non-Admin JollyRoger.GIF The flag of the former admin!

To speak to another with consideration, to appear before him with decency and humility, is to honour him; as signs of fear to offend. To speak to him rashly, to do anything before him obscenely, slovenly, impudently is to dishonour. Leviathan, X. Proverb for the year: if you have nothing new to say, don't say it. You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. In general, I prefer to conduct my discussions in public. If you have a question for me, put it here (or on the article talk, or...) rather than via email. I "archive" (i.e. delete old stuff) quite aggressively (it makes up for my untidiness in real life). If you need to pull something back from the history, please do. Once. Please leave messages about issues I'm already involved in on the talk page of the article or project page in question. My Contribs • Blocks • Protects • Deletions • Block log

The Holding Pen

Reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Fluid dynamics

Crownest has expressed interest in reviving this. Since you were a member of the FD project (now converted into a taskforce), I'm wondering if you'd be a part of the Taskforce. The taskforce is undergoing a significant overhaul at the moment, and by the end of it, it should be fairly easy to get around and there should be a nifty compendium of useful tools for people interested in FD. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In principle, I can help in small ways, though no longer being professionally involved. I wonder if there is an embedded prog taskforce? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Prog taskforced?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

A reader writes:

"Leaving aside direct biological effects, it is expected that ocean acidification in the future will lead to a significant decrease in the burial of carbonate sediments for several centuries, and even the dissolution of existing carbonate sediments.[31] This will cause an elevation of ocean alkalinity, leading to the enhancement of the ocean as a reservoir for CO2 with moderate (and potentially beneficial) implications for climate change as more CO2 leaves the atmosphere for the ocean.[32]"

I'm not sure, but it sounds odd. You can beat me to it if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like it was User:Plumbago [1] William M. Connolley (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Correctly deduced. It was me. It may not be worded well, but I think that it's factually correct. Basically, as well as its other effects on living organisms in the ocean, acidification is also expected (see the references) to dissolve existing carbonate sediments in the oceans. This will increase the ocean's alkalinity inventory, which in turn increases its buffering capacity for CO2 - that is, the ocean can then store more CO2 at equilibrium than before (i.e. the "implications for climate change" alluded to). As a sidenote, it also means that palaeo scientists interested in inferring the past from carbonate sediment records will have to work fast (well, centuries) before their subject matter dissolves away! Hope this helps. --PLUMBAGO 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Double diffusive convection

Bit surprised there is no article on DDC? Has the term gone out of fashion? It was half the course in "Buoyancy in Fluid Dynamics" when I did Part III 23 years ago. --BozMo talk 13:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember is was a nice demo on the fluid dynamics summer school DAMPT ran. Not sure I would still be confident of writing it up 10:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I might have to suggest it to Huppert or someone. --BozMo talk 10:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If one of you two makes a stub, I'd be willing to read up on it and make it a longer stub. Awickert (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What a kind offer. I have started here: Double diffusive convection--BozMo talk 10:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

All right - I'll get to it (eventually). It's on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

CSS site

Forgive the quick note, but I happened to notice the comments at the top about CSS, and some places to learn about it. I second the site mentioned, but also take a look at the CSS Zen Garden at [[2]] - it's a great place to quickly see what CSS is capable of doing. Basically, it's a site where people take the exact same HMTL page, but use a different .css file, and completely change how the page looks. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Current

CC

I've just noticed climate change has accumulated lots of cruft, not to mention a distressing number of obvious errors. If you want to help with cleanup that would be great. BTW you may be interested in this. Boris noticing climate change have bourgeois excess and provocations. Duty is assisting heroic efforts to institute reliability. Basis for new five-year plan here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yo. What happened to the Russian accent? It is about time I actually did something useful for climate articles instead of attracting flak for blocking people. OK William M. Connolley (talk) 06:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Spiffing William M. Connolley (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

augh

I'll admit I didn't really assume good faith about the Abd arbcom given some recent actions of yours, but after reading Abd's posts on the case I've done a complete 180. He is even more annoying than Giovanni33. Jtrainor (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah well I'm glad you've seen the light in the end :-). Lets hope it isn't an oncoming train William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Judge Dredd

If you think [3] counts as a personal attack for likening you to Judge Dredd then tell me and I will withdraw it. However I thought you migh appreciate it. --BozMo talk 08:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks fair enough (you're pursuing an interesting line there). Can I have the motorbike too? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Had never heard of Judge Dredd. Now why did the title Mutants in Mega-City One make me think immediately of Wikipedia? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we've mined a rich vein here. I can feel a cabal logo coming on... William M. Connolley (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Judge Judy... much more fearsome. I'm not sure if my cabal membership is official yet, as he only states it in a "response" I haven't seen posted anywhere official. Verbal chat 18:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The cabal welcomes new members. All you need is basic sanity and a willingness to shoot from the hip (oh, and the sekret handshake, of course, but we don't talk about that) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You talk waaaay too much to be likened to Dredd :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But he never removes his helmet. Let's hope there isn't a block war. Verbal chat 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

For your pleasure

I'd almost forgotten about this little compilation that I started a while ago. It seems especially appropriate lately. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

Given that this month's theme is Theatre of the Absurd, did you ever notice Atmospheric models is not simply the plural of Atmospheric model? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, but I know now. I might even help William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your ArbCom userpage comment

I know that you were disappointed by the conduct and results of the case, and I'm sure you're aware that I voted against most of the remedies proposed against you and share some portion of your feelings. However, I respectfully suggest that calling one of my colleagues a "fool" on-wiki is not helpful. We all accept a great deal of criticism and commentary as par for the course in connection with serving as arbitrators—just as you have as one of our active administrators on contentious topics—but I always still think it's better, and more effective, to stay away from the overtly ad hominem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you've found it :-). And while you are here, thank you for your votes. I am indeed deeply disappointed by the conduct of your colleagues; and I regret having to disappoint you now. Arbcomm are big boys and girls and can cope with some discrete criticism of their actions. Moreover, you (arbcomm, I can't recall how you personally voted) established the principle that users are entitled to insult a blocking admin as much as they please on their own talk pages; I'm sure you'll extend a similar privilidge to those who desysop people William M. Connolley (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I should add that there is a diff there justifying the appelation. I regard the extensive comment re the cabal as being grotesquely stupid. However this carries no implication that is the most foolish thing that particular arb has done in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is entitled to insult anyone here William. If arbcom has passed some sort of rule the "entitles" users to insult a blocking admin(and I seriously doubt they have) then I would use good sense and ignore such an "entitlement" as unproductive. Chillum 14:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Really? Are you certain of your ground here? Suppose someone were to call the arbcomm "liars" or "lying bastards" or "ridiculous" or "devious" or compare them to a third world Junta? Do you think that would be actionable? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be rather poor judgment. Just because something is not actionable does not make it an entitlement. Chillum 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the arbcomm's decision permitting this, I entirely agree with you. However, until they are wise enough to revoke it (and alas I fear we will have rather a long time to wait for wisdom from them) we are stuck with it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked to see which arb was accused of being a "fool," but am curious how would "Stephen Bain should not be entrusted with anything more valuable than a ball of string" would be received. I'd like to know before I say that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like worst is coming to worst...

And I'm sorry to see you go down like this. Thanks for all the good work you did over the past several years. It is appreciated. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 22:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

By the discerning ;-). Thank you William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom has basically put science-oriented editors on notice with this case: even an inaccurate suspicion of collaborative editing is enough to make one guilty.[4] So if Editor A says all the recent CO2 rise is from natural sources, and Editor B responds saying no, the isotope ratios are all wrong for that; and Editor C says no, the change in N2/O2 ratios are all wrong for that; and Editor D says no, the ocean carbon measurements are all wrong for that, then it's Editors B, C, and D who are the bad guys. We may as well hand over the global warming articles to GoRight and Cla68 and Scibaby, hand over the pharmacology articles to the New Agers, and so on. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The less-burnt side of the pancake

Well, now that you're no longer an admin, you can stop feeling responsible for admin-type requests. That should free up about 80% of your on-wiki babysitting. Think about the number of good books you could read. The lowering of your resting heart rate. You could drop me a message about writing an article (or more likely Boris or someone else who does what you do), or you could ignore wiki entirely. And you should not feel bad at all for the increased workload on the other admins who are willing to deal with controversial topics. Hey, not your decision, right?

Happy vacation and I will be grumblingly checking my watchlist :-), Awickert (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I do having some reading stacked up. And there is the Stubaital project to do. Not to mention the attack page to finish up William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Splendid! (Said in my head in the best faux English accent I can muster.) And I'm now watching Stubaital, might look into the geology and glacial history. Awickert (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff

User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Lord Dundreary (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

O, the humanity! MastCell ^Talk 06:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

► RATEL ◄ 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You're a malicious sock m'lud, and you're banned. As for the deletion, thanks to M [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a sock for sure, just never came in my mind. Should have thought of that.Abce2|This isnot a test 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have undone the close, and taken the listing on as my own, analogous to what CHL did recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination). I do think there is merit in the nomination, I'm afraid, and I see where you were asked about removal before: [6]. Others may not agree, but I think calling people fools probably does verge into the area we tend to disallow, even on user pages. ++Lar: t/c 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

And I thought arbcomm was a waste of time :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and could you be so kind as to point to the actual request for removal? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, at least not in so many words, so I'm afraid I cannot do you that kindness. The implication was clear enough to me, though. ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful with a misleading choice of words in future, especially when you are here to complain about choice of words William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, point taken, I shall try to do better in future, and apologies for any confusion engendered. If you prefer to discuss this further, would you prefer on my page or yours? I'd rather keep discussion in one place, it feels like we're discussing about the same thing in both. Fair warning, my page standard practices are a bit different than yours, in that I hardly ever remove things, regardless of where the convo goes. ++Lar: t/c 17:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets use your page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

Here's some unasked for, and possibly unwelcome, advice. You will probably be tempted to vent in some memorable fashion in the next few hours. When that happens, I wonder if you could dial it back to a few biting remarks? Just think how disappointed some people will be when you don't explode.

And yes, I think you've been one of our better admins.Cardamon (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been so long-drawn out, nothing exciting will happen in the next few hours. Still, the advice is well meant and I appreciate it. I'll be expanding the why-arbcomm-aren't-up-to-the-job page, but that's a slow process William M. Connolley (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, WMC. We disagree about lots of things, but I did not want to see you lose the mop, as I explained on the "Proposed decision" talk page. If you chose to go through another RFA, please email me so I can vote for you. Best wishes, CWC 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well thank you. That is kind, and I will remember William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision is available in full at the link above.

As a result of this case:

1. The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles substantially about cold fusion, are placed under discretionary sanctions.
2. Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for a period of three months from Wikipedia, and for a period of one year from the cold fusion article. These bans are to run concurrently. Additionally, Abd is prohibited from participating in discussions about disputes in which he is not one of the originating parties, including but not limited to article talk pages, user talk pages, administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution, however not including votes or comments at polls. Abd is also admonished for edit-warring on Arbitration case pages, engaging in personal attacks, and failing to support allegations of misconduct.
3. William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s administrator rights are revoked. He may apply for their reinstatement at any time via Requests for Adminship or appeal to the Committee. William M. Connolley is also admonished for edit warring on Arbitration case pages.
4. Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded not to edit war and to avoid personal attacks.
5. The community is urged to engage in a policy discussion and clarify under what circumstances, if any, an administrator may issue topic or page bans without seeking consensus for them, and how such bans may be appealed. This discussion should come to a consensus within one month of this notice.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm am sorry to see that your adminship has been revoked. I believe that our circumstances are similar in a way. I too was once an admin and lost my tools mainly due to conflicts on articles related to the events surrounding the 9/11 attacks. I know that the vast majority of my content creation and all my FA's were done after I was desysopped...with that said I am hoping that we can still look forward to your wisdom and guidance in those areas you have so instrumental in and that you will continue to help us build as reliable a reference base as we can achieve. Best wishes to you!--MONGO 03:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a great day for Arbcom or the project. However I doubt you will take it too personally. --BozMo talk 08:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I ask that you please accept my nomination to regain your administrative rights at RFA. 99.191.73.2 (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Vair tempting. I fear that was the wrong forum. I shall ponder this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear this, William. You were a good admin. I hope you won't let it bother you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I rarely comment in RFA, nor do I monitor them. If you ever decide to be re-nominated, I would appreciate a courtesy notice as otherwise I will almost certainly not be aware of the discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish to notify you of this request for clarification. 99.27.133.215 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ineteresting

[7] Hardly surprising that arbcom wants to keep their mess as far from view as possible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)

Weird. Who is it supposed to be a courtesy too? I've asked C User_talk:Carcharoth#CB. Certainly it seems to me that the people most embarassed by that page would be arbcomm William M. Connolley (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton expressed a desire for blanking, both during the case and at WT:AC/N. As I understand it, she feels that having Abd's allegations about cabal-ism visible were and are slandering her and everyone else smeared by the accusations. EdChem (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to look at User_talk:Cool_Hand_Luke#Thanks_and_question for more on Woonpton's view, as well as the thread immediately above it. EdChem (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This giant spwaling ill-managed case now extends to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Courtesy_blanking_of_case_pages. Sigh - I thought they had finally managed to finish this case, but not, they drag its stinking corpse out of the grave and prop it up again William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which section is best to post this, but I would be delighted to renominate you at RFA or support you if you decide to run. Stifle (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I noticed you're missing the rollback feature. Just ask an admin and they can give you rollback. --TS 10:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• You now haz rollback Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks to you both! My climb back to ultimate power starts here :-) [8] William M. Connolley (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey - I'm sorry about the desysop. Wikipedia is poorer for it, even if the seven blinkered naifs who voted for it don't realize it right now.

I want to apologize for getting a tad impatient at times (perhaps an understatement) with the arbitration process. I hope that my actions didn't back them into choosing the course of action that they did, but I'm sorry for any detrimental effect on you that might participation might have had.

I notice that they've very effectively shut down any further discussion of the problems with their process by blanking all the case talk pages. While I'm sure that they will protest that they only do it as a courtesy and out of the goodness of their own hearts, I will observe for the record that if they really were interested in discussing or fixing the issues raised they could have easily done so. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion of the page blanking is at User talk:Woonpton, where she says "it blows my mind" that the arbs are using her concerns as a pretext for blanking the entire case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sympathy. Don't worry about your own behaviour: your contributions were very welcome. The blanking is weird; when I last looked they were "not stonewalling" by, err, not doing anything William M. Connolley (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note

How it seems to me is that I blundered into something where I maybe didn't understand all the issues, and I'm still struggling to decide just where I come down on it all, as can be seen by my ambivalence and maybe even what seems like waffling; I'm just trying to see and understand the different views on the matter. I do see where you're coming from, I think, and I agree that it's a problem that when a page is blanked, it's not a simple matter to bring up a diff by clicking on an entry on a contributions page; you just get the top page that says "this page has been courtesy blanked." I didn't know that, and I do think it's a problem.

I haven't always agreed with you, and sometimes I've not understood at all why you do some of the things you do, but when it's all said and done, I see the loss of your tools as a significant net loss for the encyclopedia. There are so few administrators left that will tackle the fringe areas, and I don't see more rushing in to fill the gap; the only foreseeable outcome is that the quality of content will be compromised.

I'm tired and discouraged and I'm going, but I wish you all the best, Woonpton (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter's Principle

Review of same says "Laurence Peter observed that bosses who are competent in their roles tend to assess employees according to their output and results, whereas incompetent bosses tend to assess employees according to their input and adherence to rules and policies, etc. This remains a feature of poorly managed organisations and hierarchies today" --BozMo talk 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice sought

Various people have been kind enough to ask me to run for admin, so that they could vote for me. Some have been unkind enough to ask me to run, so they could vote against. But certainly it would be a way to clear the air. The obvious disadvantage (apart from the even more obvious one of letting the std.malcontents vent their bile) would be that quite a few honest folk would simply say "not so soon after arbcomm sanction" out of respect for arbcomm. Or so I suspect.

Anyway, here is your chance to offer wise advise. Be brief or be truncated. Be helpful or be removed. This isn't a vote. I will clean up "mess" as it goes when I can.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do it

• Yo.  pablo_hablo. 21:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, Wikipedia needs people like you as admins. If you do go for it and it doesn't work out, I think you should try again later. When I saw what happened I immediately assumed that it was only temporary as the correct action would eventually be taken. OlYeller^Talktome 16:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Go for it. You've, on the whole, done far more good than bad. Jtrainor (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't

• Why create drama? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• It'd almost certainly end up like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 2 with the std.oppose being "wait a while". -Atmoz (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• You'll like not being an admin. Trust me. Give it a while. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• While it's not quite the same as MZM2 which was run during the arb case, it is quite soon after. Some might see it as thumbing your nose - I wouldn't - but I think you'll get opposes just for that so giving it a while would be worthwhile. Might be healthy to reflect and take a break anyway. –xeno^talk 21:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• It's up to you, and I'd support your run, but it may not be the right time. More below, to keep this short. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Don't do it yet. Though I would support you wouldn't pass and it would just be a drama-fest. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I suspect that the planets will be more favorably aligned a little over three months from now. N p holmes (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strangely also I think waiting a little is better. Making it a sort of snub or vote of no confidence on Arbcom would be fun but it might prevent all sorts of good people from supporting you, and confuse the issue that we all want you back as admin but we may not think humiliation for even a weak Arbcom is in the community interest. For example I think you should offer NewYorkBrad as the Arbcom member who actually read everything the honour of nominating you, and etiquette would prevent that without a decent pause. Waiting three months and expressing some sort of regret is more likely to give the best outcome, which is you doing your important role with strong support from the whole community apart from a few sad souls (as before). If you do stand you need to count to ten on answering questions by the way cos you've been feeding the Trolls too much of late ;) --BozMo talk 13:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'd recommend wait, just so people don't go around saying you have no respect for wikipedia, or bill it as a no confidence vote in arbcom (we saw how they reacted to that one with the FT2 fiasco). However, I will vote for you now or later - unless you block me again. I will also vote against ArbCom if given the opportunity, ArbCom is clearly broken, but they should be separate. How about you all vote for me instead? Verbal chat 15:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is there any conceivable way that you could avoid contentious areas or subjects for three months? Cases are not always decided based on the pure merits, because many people are using a 20,000-foot view and don't have time to look at every diff. The grand-overall-average view of your work is probably that you tackle many difficult issues, and often act forcefully. Credit for the good may be diluted by not fully understanding what it is that you do. Arbcom may be deciding based on the 'often act forcefully' rather than the judgment that has gone into your actions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Don't bother - adminship isn't worth it any more (and I speak as someone who was an admin for six years). It'll make you the target of cranks and thugs on- and off-wiki, as I'm sure you've already found, and you won't get any backup from an Arbcom dominated by dim-witted wannabe politicians who are more interested in posturing than in promoting the development of a high-quality encyclopedia. I suspect that you will be able to be more effective without adminship, to be honest. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• If someone snatches away your mop, it might be a good invitation to move on to activities that are more enjoyable than volunteer janitorial work. Awickert (talk) 01:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Extended commentary

(feel free to delete this extended section) I'm gobsmacked by Thatcher's recent claims of your involvement and misuse of tools, and I'm concerned that until that gets straightened out it's going to torpedo you. (I thought it was No Big Deal^TM to semiprotect or even protect a page – even a page that you frequently edit – if it is being extensively targeted by sockpuppets or vandals. Obviously any sort of protection to 'win' a content dispute is out, but doing to it to stop block evasion and vandalism should be a legitimate use of the tools.) I'm also concerned that some people will treat the RfA as a referendum on the ArbCom — which cuts both ways for you. (Contrary to GTBacchus, I wouldn't see you as using this as a vehicle for vindication; you genuinely do (or have done) an extremely large amount of useful admin-type stuff which does help the project, particularly at AN/3RR.)

Cynically, I also note that waiting until Abd returns and casts his verbose vote against you might help to persuade fence-sitters that your actions were an understandable response — though a reference to his evidence presentation during the arbitration, or to any old version of Talk:Cold fusion, might suffice in that regard.

Finally, it may be useful to wait until after the concerns about the seriously broken process followed during the arbitration are presented and the ArbCom offered a chance to explain and defend their actions. Editors are likely to be more sympathetic to your candidacy after a bit of cool reflection, examination, and hindsight reveal to the community just how badly they screwed up (in terms of process, and not just outcome). If they stonewall or gloss over rather than acknowledging and fixing their errors, it further helps your case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, I struck it. Shall I beat my breast publicly? I screwed up. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; I got an edit conflict when I posted my extraordinarily overlong comment — I didn't realize that there had been a teapot tempest while I was typing. Consider my comment modified to reflect your new statement — even if you wouldn't see a run so soon as a vehicle for vindication (in lieu of encyclopedia improvement), I wouldn't be surprised to see a few objections on that basis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

(you're still free to delete if you want) Personally, I don't have much trust left after this final ArbComm, I see yet more editors leave Wikipedia because of the total mismanagement, etc. etc. I am not going to give do or don't advice. You have my support, strong support (I already watchlisted the page). I do fear the concerns of others above, it will be trolled by your opponents (but those will do that anyway), regulars will fear the Arb.Comm. decision, and I think you need a strong case. I would be delighted to see you pass, so soon after the closure, it would be a proof that the decision of the ArbComm was totally wrong, that you have wide support for your actions and decisions, and it would strengthen a case against ArbComm to show that they did loose touch with reality. Though I hope, I do not see any chance that they will acknowledge, let alone repair their errors. Maybe they will adapt from now, but it is too late. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Decision

Thanks for all the advice. The answer is that the noes win the day; I especially like Boris's advice. This is in principle the wrong decision but wiki doesn't seem to be a very principled place nowadays William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Light relief

[9] :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:Talk page of Richard Lizden

Will,

I just undid your revert. Calling someone a sockpuppet with no proof is incivil and pretty much constitutes a personal attack. I'm not looking for an edit war or anything, so if it's changed back, I won't revert. Just explaining my reasoning to you. _{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 17:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Climate change

I noticed that you and Boris talked about tackling this some time ago; would you like to make a concerted effort on it with me (and possibly your tp stalkers)? I'll be gone Sat-Wed and am a little busy until then, but will make some time if you or others are up for it, Awickert (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Marc H. Rudov

Hi William: Anonymous user 98.234.124.104 is up to his old tricks on the Marc H. Rudov article. Here's the proof.[10]. Can you make the article off limits to new users permanently? We've been through this three times before. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. See the black flag at the top of this page :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your persistence is important

I want to thank you for your persistence in defending content above all. Much of the community seems to have forgotten that this is an encyclopedia. Your work in fighting for science, against those who would seek to have it removed and muddied, is important. It's hard work, and you've had to fight against the bureaucracy to do so. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Your notification. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not actually do something useful instead of just stirring up trouble? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets see - I have two pages at FAC, I have 4 at GAN, I am working on another 12 part DYK set, and I have performed multiple reviews of GAN and FACs in the past 24 hours. What have you done that is "useful"? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You could look at your contributions for today. And you could look at mine, if you care. But mine are irrelevant: it is you who is wasting time stirring up trouble. If you have the time free, please use it productively William M. Connolley (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw the post on ANI. Ottava let me give you the same advice you gave to Malleus. I would just drop it for the moment, all it appears to be doing is stirring up bad feelings. This isn't a blanket to do whatever WMC wants but if the incivilities are as bad as you are saying I'm sure other editors will catch on. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fools and their foolishness

Regarding [11], you are quite welcome to raise any of your concerns or points on my talk page. I'm quite open to constructive feedback, even if it's harsh or drastically opposed to my views or actions. I even promise not to seek a block if you call me a fool. However, if you call me Mungojerrie or make me listen to "Memory", it's war! :-) (If you prefer to keep everything together, we could easily have the same discussion at User talk:William M. Connolley/For me/Misc arbcomm-y stuff.) Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll decline your permission to call you a fool on your page, though, since I think that would be wrong. The "Misc" page needs some more work when I hve a spare moment William M. Connolley (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)