Talk:William Connolley/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Page archived

No discussion in a month, and a very long page. Seemed like time to archive. Cool Hand Luke 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What a joke. This is a vanity page

This guy is nothing in the science world. Very mediocre. He's a blogger and a wikipedia admin. this whole thing is self-referential. Oh...and pretty funny how y'all use the archive feature to try to hide discussion now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion

Kept coming across this user name and noticed there is an actual Wikipedia page. Did a Google search and found this user has a blog. Unclear this meets notability requirement. Unless good reason provided, page should be deleted.Sam Yi (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

In the future, before you speedy a page, look to see if there's a template on the talk page recounting the AFDs. This article has been through many. If you would like to nominate it again, I suppose you can, but speedy is not an option at this point. I suggest you look through the old debates before nominating it. Cool Hand Luke 01:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Still could find no evidence of notability...only that previous attempts had tried and failed. Unless facts can be presented, will need to request deletion again. Sam Yi (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. But this article does not qualify for speedy. Use WP:AFD. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 09:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Sam Yi has been blocked as an abuse sock puppet of a permanently blocked POV-pushing sockmaster. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jimmy Wales quote

The text of this article has Jimmy Wales weighing in to support Connolley as someone who was let down by the Wikipedia system during a previous arbitration case. However, when I read the actual article supporting this I find the following text:

or all its protocol, Wikipedia’s bureaucracy doesn’t necessarily favor truth. In March, 2005, William Connolley, a climate modeller at the British Antarctic Survey, in Cambridge, was briefly a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming, to which he had contributed. After a particularly nasty confrontation with a skeptic, who had repeatedly watered down language pertaining to the greenhouse effect, the case went into arbitration. “User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own,” his accuser charged in a written deposition. “His views on climate science are singular and narrow.” A decision from the arbitration committee was three months in coming, after which Connolley was placed on a humiliating one-revert-a-day parole. The punishment was later revoked, and Connolley is now an admin, with two thousand pages on his watchlist—a feature that enables users to compile a list of entries and to be notified when changes are made to them. He says that Wikipedia’s entry on global warming may be the best page on the subject anywhere on the Web. Nevertheless, Wales admits that in this case the system failed. It can still seem as though the user who spends the most time on the site—or who yells the loudest—wins.

Now, whilst the journalist is clearly sympathetic to Connolley here, it's not clear to me that Jimmy Wales' words here were intended to take Connolley's side in this dispute. Can anyone clarify what Wales' actual view is here? Alex Harvey (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No one responded. This seems to be journalist spin to me but the ambiguous wording makes it impossible to know. The text suggests to me that Wales may have remained neutral on the actual arbitration case, and possibly likes the global warming article (or is that Connolley? again, ambiguous wording makes it impossible to know). The comments attributed to Wales would apply equally to all sides. Again, is there any more evidence of Wales's actual view here? Alex Harvey (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the source entirely unambiguous. And I was, in fact, there during the second ArbCom case that reversed WMC's restrictions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, the sentence, "He says that Wikipedia's entry on global warming may be the best page on the subject anywhere on the Web." -- is that referring to Connolley or Wales? That is clearly ambiguous. I think it probably means Wales, in which case it's badly written.

Next, Wales admits the system failed; no ambiguity there. The ambiguity enters in the next sentence: Wales then appears to take a neutral view and points to the person who stays on the site the longest (well few could have more fingerprint in the global warming articles than William Connolley? surely that's a reference to Connolley?) whereas the person who yells the loudest is presumably the user who took the case to arbitration. Thus I believe the journalist here may have spun a comment by Wales to support something Wales didn't actually meant to support.

You say you were there, so does that mean that Wales himself eventually weighed in? Or is our text based purely on this journalist's piece? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation appears to be correct, as I have asked Jimbo and his response is here. As I regard myself as having a WP:COI I will not edit William's biography page. Alex Harvey (insert): Correction, Jimbo made no comment on whose view it was that the GW page is the best anywhere on the web. William could probably clarify that too. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Scibaby thread

Cripes, guys, can't you see when someone's taking the piss? Er, I mean...something else. More at WP:RBI and WP:DENY. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ACADEMIC

Biography version as found and commented on: here

Can this article please be fleshed out to point out exactly how Connolley meets the various criteria in WP:ACADEMIC, which is our notability guideline for academics. Just having a list of publications, and being devoid of any detail of the impact or even reception of his work, does not show the average editor how this article meets WP:ACADEMIC, and by extension, does not show the reader why Connolley has a Wikipedia biography. MickMacNee (talk) 18:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:ACADEMIC#Notes_and_examples. To wit:

The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work: either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account.

Mr. Connolley has authored and co-authored several academic works which have been cited by other publications.[1] Chuthya (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The search results that you linked contain papers by WE Connolly and WJ Connolly. This article is about William Michael Connolley (note the spelling of the last name). A Google Scholar search like this might make more sense. Anyway, the top cites are 141, 84, 68, 51, ... with h-index approx. 17 in Google Scholar. Top cites 125, 120, 55, 38, ... and h-index approx. 14 in ISI Web of Knowledge. (I checked that the first hits are really articles by the same person.) Looks like a borderline case of WP:PROF#1 to me, might survive an AfD simply based on this data. — Miym (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

But keep in mind that for most of these he is not first author. Granted, collaborative papers are quite common in the sciences, but not being first author does indicate a lower level of contribution. Citation figures for papers where he is first author are rather lower. Here's another variant on the search: [2] Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not universally true. Both alphabetic and random author ordering are quite common. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Chuthya, I cannot believe you went to the trouble of copying and pasting that paragraph here, and then proceeded to state "Connolley has authored and co-authored several academic works which have been cited by other publications", as if they were one and the same thing. Ignoring the false positive mistake, the pertinent adjectives are "substantial" and "significant", not "has" and "have". And where is the evidence of reviews? Regarding H indexes, the guideline is clear about their status too. Lets be clear here, I am not looking for vague hand waves here, I am after concrete evidence that Connolley without doubt meets ACADEMIC. MickMacNee (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the notability criteria is particularly relevant at this point in the lifespan of this article; its primary use is at AfD, and there is almost no chance that this article will be deleted at AfD given its history. Better approach, in my opinion, is to focus on what the article lacks as a biography and whether information is available to address that lack. If it isn't, it isn't - it does no good to demand that others provide background material that doesn't exist. Nathan ^T 20:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the OP, "Can this article please be fleshed out...". This is a request for expansion. Nobody should simply be ignoring what is missing from the article, namely assertion of academic notability, based on any misguided idea that the article is somehow invincible, whatever happens. Standards for inclusion, especially for biographies, are improving all the time, and some of the prior Afd's look decidely dated and have an utterly tiny participation, compared to the more recent debates and outcomes for comparable biographies, that have been deleted. The last proper Afd with a decent debate and without an inappropriate SNOW closure, was in September 2006, and in policy terms, that is a very long time ago. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The place to discuss this question is at AfD. And it has already been discussed there. It has already been discussed there five times, with five successive keeps. Questioning it further seems a little remarkable, and might be taken to indicate something other than NPOV. To keep an article, one does not need proof that the subject without doubt meets our standard. "without doubt" = fame, and our standard for anything is considerably less than that, or it would be a much smaller encyclopedia, The burden of the proof is on the person who wants to delete it. To delete, one needs to show that the subject on balance fails to meet the standard. Anyway, in essentially any field of study, ISI citations of 121,120 ,... are enough to show major influence within the profession. But h index is indeed not meaningful without knowing the actual distribution: h=14 could mean either 14 papers with 14 citations, which would not tend to indicate notability or 2 papers with 100 citations and 12 with 14, which would indicate it. The importance of an academic is the importance of his most important work, not the volume of papers. And FWIW in 06 when I came here the standards on academics were not weaker than they are now. If anything, we have an easier time showing it now, when people accept that citations show importance, just as scientists do among themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well with five full term Afds supposedly dealing with the question of ACADEMIC or predecessors (which is evidently not the case when you look at them), don't you find it a bit strange that the article still contains not a shred of description of notability per ACADEMIC beyond a list of papers and an unqualified description of his work. If this is the very low inclusion standard, nearly any phd could have an article. And you are surely aware that BLP standards are rising all the time, which would obviously suggest otherwise. While 121 may appear to show influence, there is no figure in ACADEMIC, and a person would have to trawl its archives to find if one had even been debated, or whether a basic figure on its own was a solid measure. And again, in a look over the Afd's there is no definitve conclusion either way, so I would argue that it has not been addressed at Afd yet for this article. You only need to look above to see there is obviously still a doubt. Still, more opinions are welcome as ever. MickMacNee (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any BLP standards-related problems here. At first glance, it seems that all the potentially-contentious statements and material are footnoted in accordance with our best practices. There may be a question about the weight given to his Wikipedia activities, but the article isn't a WP:COATRACK or anything. If the article subject were to request deletion as a marginally-notable figure, it's certainly possible that we would consider deletion on those grounds, but for the moment that's a moot point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia controversy

Lawrence Solomon --LiberalJames (talk) 07:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why this got reverted. How can you deem one article as opinion and another as fact? Is this an inconvenient truth? If so, why don't you excercise the same editorial subbing to the comments about the New Yorker piece? It's surely an opinion that Connolley was a 'victim' of an edit war. If William Connolley has a page I'd like to see other references rather than a puff piece from the New Yorker and something written up by associates and friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.78.223 (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

WP conduct

As there's a section on WP on this page, it seems sensible to note Connolley's repeated blocks and the violations behind them.Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And what WP:RS do you wish to use for verification? This seems rather a petty way to attempt to "get back at" an editor with whom you have had conflicts. Vsmith (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the block log would be a pretty reliable log of blocks. Also, please assume WP:GOODFAITH. Do you not think that the current section lacks WP:NPOV, as it fails to mention repeated WP:BLOCK history as a result of violations of WP:3RR etc?Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, kinda funny isn't it. You may note that all the other sentences in that section are sourced. Vsmith (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not referencing WP articles, it's referencing a factual record on WP. I've flagged the section till we sort this out. Bearing in mind the notability dispute, the article needs to be whiter than white if it's to stay, and I do think it should stay as the WP seciton is important and the article has been cited by external sorucesAndrewjlockley (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Its already mentioned: "Jimbo Wales cited the sanctions against Connolley as a failure of the system" and sourced to the New York Times. OTOH, if you keep trolling, Andrew, YOUR block for disruption and civility violations will be well merited. I suggest you cease and desist. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WMC's block log is for WP:3RR and WP:CIVILITY, nothing to do with the points above. The neutrality tag should not be removed until this matter is resolved, as per policy.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC) PS I am perfectly entitled to express an opinion about this WP article. My edit and tagging is valid, my points are politely made and reasonably argued. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH and do not make ad hominem attacks.Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

None his block log was newsworthy; ergo none of it will be included in this article. Assuming good faith has nothing to do with the warning I have given you. I have made no attacks, merely warned you to moderate your approach and cease your tendentious behavior. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The blocklog is relevant as the current article fails to neutrally represent the facts of his WP editing career, painting him as a victim of bureaucratic persecution, when in fact he's been repeatedly blocked for rule violation and uncivil conduct. For the avoidance of doubt, I explicitly reject your warning. I have conducted myself entirely properly in this, making a valid edit, resorting to talk page and tagging instead of reverting. I am a legit editor and I'm entitled to edit when I see fit to do so. I will not tolerate personal abuse or unwarranted warnings for my entirely reasonable behaviour.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC) BTW, as this thread is still active, the neutrality tag should not have been removed. I'm not going to breach 1rr on this, so someone else should put it back. The debate over neutrality is valid.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have no point. There are no reliable sources discussing the block log, the block log itself is, at best, a primary source, and unsuitable for inclusion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

← A person's Wikipedia block log is, at best, a primary-source document. As such, it is not appropriate as a sole citation for material in a biographical article, particularly when independent, reliable secondary sources fail to mention it. A continued insistence on inserting a link to a person's Wikipedia block log into their biography is a violation of WP:BLP and will be treated as such.

The representation of WMC's Wikipedia activity is based on independent, reliable secondary sources, including the New Yorker and Nature. If you feel that our article inaccurately represents the content of those sources, then please make your case. Instead, you seem to be arguing your personal opinion that those sources were not critical enough for your liking, which is an inappropriate use of the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The log is not notable and cannot be sourced to a WP:RS. The content you added is therfore in violation of WP:BLP. Your continued arguing here is tiresome. The fact that you have had conflicts with WMC over the last few weeks really makes your edits here questionable so simply stop. Vsmith (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The block log is the block log. You don't need the guardian to tell you what's in it. It is the MOST reliable source of what's in itself. I can't actually believe that someone's arguing with me that something's not a reliable source of itself. It's also notable in the context of this article, which itself is chiefly based around WMC's WP contributions. Failing to mention this is like failing to mention that a vicar has several convictions for insurance fraud and carjacking.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Up 3 (or so) comments, you offer the block log as evidence that "[WMC has] been repeatedly blocked for rule violation and uncivil conduct." So obviously you think it is a reliable source not only for the fact that admin X blocked user Y with comment Z, but for more, e.g. for "uncivil conduct". Well, the only block that seems appropriate is Ed's - and guess what: Ed is no longer an administrator, as his judgement has been found failing fairly often. And that is why we avoid primary sources in most cases - interpreting them usually requires expert knowledge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the way we treat 3RR violations (and the way we resolve disputes as a whole) has changed a good bit since 2005. Also the circumstances in which we allow blocking - Ed's block was probably OK when it happened, but today it wouldn't be. Applying modern cultural norms to something that happened back in the dark ages is inappropriate. Guettarda (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, that seems a fairly open, sensible debate on the issue. I'm happy to accept it as WP:CONSENSUS. But please don't accuse me of being a WP:TROLL, as clearly there was a valid discussion to be had about the matter.Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am totally foreign to this debate. I stumbled upon it while reading this editorial from Lawrence Solomon posted yesterday: "When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement." Being a long time contributor to WP and having weathered my share of contoversies, I was curious to see how this article covered this issue. As I guessed, these accusations have been greatly softened. So, being a good Wikipedian, I did my part: I added the shortest sentence possible to the article, introducing the concept of wikibullying, using Solomon as RS. I do not intend to watch this page because, frankly, I do not care what you guys do with it. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

As a longterm Wikipedia editor, you should be aware of the fact that editorials are not reliable sources, and entirely unsuitable for WP:BLP articles. The Solomon opinion piece is also laughably wrong. Most of the 5000+ articles edited have nothing to do with climate change. Most of the 2000+ blocks come from WMC's tenure as one of the most appreciated WP:3RR enforcers, and again have nothing to do with Climate change. And most of the 500 deleted articles are plain nonsense, again deleted as part of the normal admin workload, and not related to climate change at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)]

Stephan Schultz and his own bullying behavior is what is wrong with WP. Clt510 (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon op-ed

A user removed material sourced by an article by Lawrence Solomon in the National Post's Financial Post section, with the given reasoning being "blogs and other low-quality sources should not be used for contentious material on BLPs." This is an odd assessment, given that the National Post is a national newspaper published daily across Canada and Solomon is a long-standing journalist and published author; the source meets WP:RS in every way possible. I've personally no opinion on Connolley in any way, but do feel that pertinent and admissable material shouldn't be censored for any reason. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 07:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorials and Op-Ed's are not reliable sources for Biography material. They are reflections of the writers personal opinion, and have little editorial oversight. Therefore they are "low-quality sources" for BLP material. And this one is clearly contentious by raising several red flags. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, I was about to write more-or-less the same thing. WMC's work as one of the most impartial and effective WP:3RR enforcers ever is entirely unrelated to the topic of climate. How LS into the equivalent of Stalin is either surreal comedy or plain propaganda of the cheapest sort. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If this is the accepted logic, why then are there still other writers' opinions in the article? If they aren't removed, one is left with the impression that the rule isn't that opinion pieces aren't welcome, it's that opinion pieces people don't like aren't allowed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 09:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, with no response here, I've restored a pared down version of the previous paragraph. As I noted in my edit summary, it's very important to remain aware that the information is clearly presented as opinion on, not as facts about, Connolley's Wikipeida contributions; some comments above seemed to insinuate that the latter had mistakenly been thought to be the case. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The description seems to violate WP:BLP. The facts stated in the accusations in the article are untrue, and the article appears to be libellous. Connolley did not edit 5,000 articles on climate change and did not routinely use his administrator tools in the climate change area. The article betrays a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works and assumes that there are not policies or guidelines employed here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Solomon's opinion should stay, and stand on its own merit, but also that it's unneccesarily confusing to include the details of the accusations levelled by him. I pared it down to a simple couple of sentences:

Lawrence Solomon, on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the National Post that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the Climategate scandal.

and believe it should be left as such. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 06:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The National Post is a first-tier Canadian newspaper -- about as WP:RS as one can possibly get in a newspaper source. The fact that such an article exists is indisputable. Until such time as Connolley successfully sues the National Post for libel, or until you can cite a WP:RS that makes the contrary argument, the argument that the article is libelous violates WP:OR. The allegations seem reasonable, and seem to be factually supported by various Wiki procedural pages, and Connolley's edit log itself -- which shows a clear and conintued editing bias to this day. And it seems specious to me to argue that "there are policies and guidelines employed here" when Connolley was disciplined on at least two occasions for violating policies and guidelines. Edrowland (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually only once - the second one was retracted by ArbCom. Moreover, Solomon's allegations are in no way reasonable or supported by "various Wiki procedural pages, and Connolley's edit log itself", which shows that he has edited less than 2000 articles (not the 5400 that Solomon describes), that most of even those articles are not climate-related, that most of his deletions are not to climate articles, but of random nonsense or of moved articles, and that by far most of the blocks he issued were short-term blocks one in accordance with established WP:3RR procedure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to be here for any particularly encyclopedic purpose in the first place, so why you are expecting any sort of meaningful response to your question, OP, is beyond me. You can throw a rock on most university campuses, safe in the knowledge it will hit a professor with more notoriety in their field than the subject of this article. Yet most of them will not have their own wikipedia page. The only thing separating this subject from any other is his involvement in wikipedia. In spite of this, any attempt to include too much information on his wikipedia-related activities is scrutinized on this talk page beyond the point of reason. This wikipedia-related notability is apparently enough to justify the existence of an encyclopedia entry. The basis for that notability, however, only bears discussion when it is sympathetic. The existing article sourced discussing his wikipedia activity contains a fair amount of opinion and bias, yet that doesn't seem to be a problem. It only becomes a problem when it's unfavorable, apparently. I don't doubt that this Solomon character is a psychopathic lunatic who devours small children and steals groceries from pensioners, but that's not really to be adjudicated by wikipedia editors before using him as a source. Even if it's in an op-ed piece, it's an assertion of fact in a major newspaper. It's unquestionably pertinent to a topic that forms a significant part of the basis for this article existing at all. Original research as to its veracity is not to be conducted by a few people here. It's not supposed to be vetted for desirability based on whether or not you believe in it. That isn't how this is all supposed to work. That's how conservapedia works. Is that really what you people want? --68.187.10.206 (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Desysop

Hi, I'm an OTRS volunteer. info@wikimedia.org is currently receiving reams of e-mail by people who have read (and believe to be true) the op-ed mentioned above, and are incensed about it. While I have no opinion about the dispute as such, these people are under the impression (as is the op-ed) that William M. Connolley is an administrator. To correct this misunderstanding, I've added the following:

In September 2009, the Arbitration Committee revoked Connolley's administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute.

This has been reverted, falsely in my opinion. I believe that an Arbcom case page is a reliable primary source for the facts it contains, though it should not be relied on for any interpretation of the facts.  Sandstein  08:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And I've removed it again. As an OTRS volunteer, you should be well aware of WP:BLP: "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". I also suggest that you form an opinion about the dispute as such - reading that column and comparing it to the logs should suffice. It will tell you about the quality of LS article, and it will enable you to write a substantial reply to those people, defending the integrity of the Wikipedia process and its editors, instead of shirking that responsibility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm, you are correct. I did not remember BLP having such stringent language concerning self-published sources, even as primary sources, but this leaves us with the uncomfortable situation of presenting a materially false situation in the article by leaving the impression that the subject is an administrator. But Connolley has now mentioned his desysop in a blog post of his own at [3]; would that suffice as a source written or published by the subject?  Sandstein  09:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you might need to wait until a WP:RS mentions the de-sysoping technically. Both BLP and Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid prohibit otherwise but I agree it is uncomfortable. Personally I would accept including a statement of "WMC is not currently an administrator" without an independent RS to provide some balance, but I would have to argue it under ignore all the rules. This article does not exist for the convenience of Arb Com after all. --BozMo talk 09:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

this is getting extremely excessive. we should accept the very-reasonable proposal made by a very credible and good-faith editor, Sandstein, to include those data and sources. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly I would also accept some dates for the period when he was an administrator. --BozMo talk 09:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? They aren't RSed either? --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the version by BozMo and apparently supported by KDP is OK. It's simple, factual, and non-controversial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And equally unsupported by RS. Why, then, is the more factual statement inacceptable? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to Praise Connolley, and since he appears to be a good friend of yours, it would appear you have a COI. Arzel (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you seem to be a Zombi remotely controlled by the Riddler, you would have a COI on every article. Look, I can invent things just as well as you can.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny, unfortunately your humor doesn't change reality. It is no secret that you, WMC and Kim work together to protect and rewrite global warming articles. It is ironic that those that would rail against the world of 1984 would so actively participate in it's ideology. You know the actionable mindset of those behind the AGW farce make my life as a scientist more difficult, thanks. </sarc> Arzel (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth Arzel, I have opposed WMC, Kim and Stephan for months on the GW articles, I supported his desysop, and I vigorously opposed his arbcom candidacy -- but I agree with them that the desysopping doesn't belong. BLP requires solid sourcing and a Wikipedia arbcom case is nowhere near reliable. If this controversy continues to the point where his Wikipedia admin status is reported in reliable sources, then maybe we can add it here, otherwise, it should stay out. ATren (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Actually, after some consideration, I am again of the opinion that my original text should be included. This is because, unlike practically every other content on Wikipedia, an arbitral decision cannot reasonably be considered unreliable, self-published content. We know who published it - the members of the Arbitration Committee - and because it is the result of open arbitration proceedings it has gone through a process of fact-checking and oversight at least comparable to that of mainstream media reporting that we routinely rely on. We can use the arbitration case at least as a primary source for what it contains ("W.C. was desysopped because the Arbitration Committee found that ..."), although of course we shouldn't use it as the basis of interpretation (e.g. "W.C. turned out to be a abusive administrator" or "W.C. became the innocent victim of a cabal").  Sandstein  06:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Statement of Wikipedia disciplinary action

I had posted the following: “Connolley had his administrative privileges revoked (desysopped) in Sept. 2009, and was “admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages.”” Stephan Shultz reverted it. This is blatant POV against facts. Wikipedia disciplinary action is NOT a "blog" but is at the highest level of authority within Wikipedia. This is directly germane to the previous disciplinary action against Connolley which was included. Shultz's edit war is rapidly leading to an intervention appeal and request that he be banned too: DLH (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Too"? Who else is? Anyways, this is a BLP, and has to abide by BLP guidelines. Wikipedia is not a suitable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to read that ("Wikipedia is not a suitable source.") twice to make sure I was seeing straight. You're saying, basically, that Wikipedia isn't reliable? The irony level there would 'stun an ox', as they say. (And yes, I know you said 'suitable', not 'reliable', but the whole point of the rules about sources is reliability, so in saying it's not 'suitable' you are effectively saying that it is not reliable.)

Look, User:Sandstein had it exactly right, above. To claim that the ArbComm page is not an appropriate source, based on a very strict reading of the rules, is simply pettifogery of the most tendentious sort. ArbComm decisions are not some random, self-published web page. They are just about the most authoritative souce one could find on a Wikipedia action, short of some enterprising journalist finding for certain who the members were in the real world, and interviewing them for an article published in a newspaper or some such. To not use them as a source is, well, bizarre. Noel (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

DLH, I agree with Stephan, this text is not permissible per BLP. ATren (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This section is explicitly about wikipedia editing. Consequently Wikipedia administrative action is the original authoritative source. Their statement is an explicit disciplinary action and should be reported as such. I am reinserting:

“admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages.” DLH (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a consensus here, which I support, against doing this. --BozMo talk 22:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I support DLH in the insertion of indisputable facts, sourced from the abitration committee. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you also proposing inclusion of his response? And what is your argument for the facts being notable? I missed it. --BozMo talk 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think we need to discuss the factuality of the arbitration page. But while not every dispute can be resolved with a blanket reference to WP:BLP, there are many things that, while true, are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia (see e.g. the examples at WP:NOTDIR). Reasonable people can disagree about how much of the arbitral decision should be quoted in the article to give a comprehensive impression of the subject's wiki-career (which does need some coverage, because it's what he seems to be mainly known for), without going into excessive detail that would violate the WP:UNDUE aspect of WP:NPOV. My opinion is that a brief summary of the reasons for the desysop would be OK, as originally proposed, but I am also fine with the current version that just mentions the desysop. The “admonished not to edit war, especially not on arbitration pages” is excessive unflattering detail, IMHO, and is also Wikipedia jargon that would need to be explained for laymen if included, which would give the issue more undue weight.  Sandstein  23:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Include the facts about the dates and other specifics of Connolley's period as an admin, as well as his desysopping--not to do so is to present a partially encyclopedic entry rather than a fully encyclopedic one. Badagnani (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

His view?

The article currently states:

It is his view that there is a consensus in the scientific community about climate change topics such as global warming, and that the various reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summarise this consensus.

While I don't doubt that this is true, isn't it a bit like going to the David Attenborough article and saying "It is his view that mankind shares a common ancestor with apes, and that the Earth is older than 10,000 years"? What I mean is, while true, there's nothing notable about a climate modeller affirming his belief in the scientific consensus on climate change. Gabbe (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there were no replies, I've removed the bit to see if anyone objects. Gabbe (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I have reverted this to the version which is clearly in line with BLP and increased it from semi to full protection. I don't like doing this since I don't like reverting before a protect on principle but it is not an ordinary edit war, there are BLP sides to this dispute. Many of the changes in the last few days are clearly regarded as BLP violations by most of the establihsed editors here. If any admin feels this was not appropriate please do unprotect --BozMo talk 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the desysop. How convenient. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. From the point of view of the project we would want it in. But there isn't a source which meets BLP for it. Putting in the end date breaks BLP but seems like a reasonable compromise. --BozMo talk 07:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable to you. Enforced by dictate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see Sandstein was convinced by the arguments above. That means Schulz, Atren, Kim, Sandstein, Ssilvers and I have all said we see a BLP issue with these edits. No one has actually offered a reason why its not a BLP issue, just a desire for inclusion. That is enough basis in my view for enforcing. --BozMo talk 07:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have said in my most recent comment above that I think making reference to the arbitration case is compliant with the intent and purpose of WP:BLP. I have no opinion about whether the Solomon op-ed shuld be included as an editorial matter (we don't need to include every criticism of a person made in the media just for the sake of completeness), but it is certainly a reliable primary source about itself. For these reasons, I do not think that the previous versions of the article violated WP:BLP, and I think that you were wrong, BozMo, to use administrator tools for what seems like furthering your position in a content dispute.  Sandstein  08:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have unblocked it, or rather moved it back to semi. I misunderstood your position --BozMo talk 08:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think semi-protection is reasonable given that this is a BLP article linked to in various high-profile partisan blogs.  Sandstein  08:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. On the BLP thing I think inclusion of the fact he was desysoped by Arbcom in my view is also possible under IAR. I do not think though that the explanation can be judgemental, because we don't know how history will interpret it. --BozMo talk 08:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, Wikipedia has more of a reputation for fact-checking then ArbCom. I agree that the fact that he is no longer an admin can be included. But anything beyond that does indeed violate BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously contesting the factuality of the statement that "the Arbitration Committee revoked Connolley's administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute"? We can discuss about whether this should be included or not for editorial reasons, such as undue focus on negative aspects etc., but I believe it is disingenuous to invoke BLP policy when the factuality of the statement is easily verifiable through a link to the arbitration page. The prohibition on self-published sources exists because we are not in a position to evaluate their reliability and so we exclude them as a general precaution, but this is not the issue here since 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. All the necessary links are there so that readers can determine for themselves what credence, if any, they want to give to the Arbitration Committee's finding.  Sandstein  09:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think that this statement implies a motivation on the part of Arbcom and is interpretative. You might equally right Arbcom reviked his status after he called them lazy and incompetent which is AFAIK true and has an opposite slant. This is why the BLP rules exist, we have to see how history will judge. --BozMo talk 09:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also OK with just noting that the Arbitration Committee revoked his administrative privileges, without saying why. This strikes me as a encyclopedically relevant fact given that his merits specifically as a Wikipedia administrator are now subject to discussion in the op-ed pages of what appears to be a serious (if politically partisan) national newspaper.  Sandstein  09:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Just note the facts (i.e. the desysoping) and give a link to the arbcom case.--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, since nobody objects.  Sandstein  08:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Solomon op-ed

I note that mention of the Lawrence Solomon piece was also removed from the article. I started a discussion about this above, but it seems that reverting the article and pretending the Solomon column never existed - to the point of not even talking about it - is the preferred action for those who don't like it. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Solomon's article is an editorial. It's not reliable for anything but Solomon's opinion, which really is irrelevant for a biography. Given that it is a pure attack piece, and completely misleading (to be generous), I don't see which encyclopedic purpose including it serves. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that.  Sandstein  15:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't fault Stephan's assessment of the editorial.

"When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand."

...including such climate-related gems as Hilery clintin, Cheekle, Mon key, User:William M. Connolley/Awards, Província Brasileira na Antartica, Corrosiv-O.... The list goes on. While Connolley's deletion log includes just over 500 entries, many were undeletions, temporary deletions to make room for page moves, deletion of copyvios or nonsense, deletion of revisions which contained inappropriate personal information, etc.

"When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions."

Er. Again, that's the total length of his admin blocking log, and counts both indefinite blocks and temporary blocks placed, as well as unblocks. The bulk of those blocks was entirely unrelated to climate change, as WMC was by far the most active administrator responding to requests at WP:AN/3RR. Unless Solomon wishes to advance the novel theory that the edit warriors at Fisting, The Matrix (series), Optics, or Gibraltar were somehow representatives of his persecuted climate-change-denialist minority, all the block log entries show is that WMC was a dedicated administrator. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me see if I'm getting this straight, so that I can have this information for future use: Any author's opinion of an individual or his or her actions is not relevant to that individual's biography page on Wikipedia? I must say, in more than five years of editing here, I have never come across such a rule; in fact, politicians' bio pages - for example - are rife with pundits' and journalists' opinions. So, someone please clarify for me what's right and help expunge Wikipedia of journalists' outlooks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Solomon blog does not contain essential information about the subject, but it does contain claims which we know are not true. There are no policies requiring Wikipedia to publish known-incorrect information, particularly in a BLP. The blog contains the strong implication that one person unilaterally deleted 500 articles and blocked 2000 contributors in order to promote a particular POV. In addition to the counter explanation given above, it is a laughable suggestion that one person could accomplish all that, particularly in such a prominent field. Johnuniq (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I thought one of the key rules of Wikipedia was that the truth was not determined by us, the editors. Ergo, if a source meets WP:RS, then it's admissible for use, regardless of whether we, as individuals, feel it is untrue (I know I've had to grin and bear the insertion of material I was positively sure was wrong); a piece by an established jouralist and author in a national daily newspaper is well within the scope of that set of rules. Given that the Solomon column is no less essential to this article than, say, the one from the New Yorker about Connolley's edit warring, I'm still left to consider only that either I've had the rules of editing wrong all along, or the Solomon piece is being rejected simply because some people don't like what it has to say. I don't know which it is. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, and hence does not meet WP:RS in the first place. From WP:BLP: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject". Nothing forces us to give a platform to patently untrue claims. The New Yorker article is proper reporting, on the other hand, not an editorial. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree compeletely. some op-ed pieces do meet the standard of notability and credibility, which makes them worth including in an entry. There is no rule which says an op-ed can never be included; sometimes, they provide insight into the shape of a notable issue and/or debate. in this case, the Solomon op-ed provides valuable information on an ongoing debate and issue which is becoming quite significant in credible circles. there was also a National Review (I think) article which is omitted here. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot link to a specific policy that covers adding a reference to information which we know to be incorrect, however, exceptional claims require exceptional sources covers this situation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the elephant in the room, does anybody at this point really believe that Stephan Schulz is acting in good faith in his blocking mention of the Solomon commentary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clt510 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"in his blocking mention of the Solomon commentary" does not really parse for me. Can you rephrase it? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The elephant appears to be in your head. The editorial is demonstrably faulty from a factual standpoint (as I and Johnuniq noted), and its inclusion would be inappropriate in a BLP anyway (as Stephen observes). Do you have any substantive, policy-based concern about the arguments raised here, or are you just attacking Stephan Shulz for the hell of it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec too) Well, I have no reason to assume that he's not acting in good faith, and he's also probably right. As he says, the op-ed is not a reliable source for anything but Solomon's opinion about William Connolley, and Solomon's opinion is not so terribly important that it needs to be mentioned in Connolley's biography.  Sandstein  17:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. What seems to be to notable that Connolley was attacked by an editorial in the NYP, which is a different perspective than trying to use the editorial as information about Connolley. If the editorial is wrong (as seems likely), it seems misguided to try and block discussion of it, and its errors. Clt510 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a person being attacked in an op-ed is a notable occurrence in and of itself. It would be worthy of mention if the op-ed had a measurable impact on his life, as discussed in reliable sources. Were we to mention every pro and con op-ed in every biography, many articles would be very long and very unreadable. Also, this biography (or any page on Wikipedia, really), is not the place to "discuss" the merits of Connolley, or Solomon, or of their views; that is what blogs and forums and op-eds are for. We are just trying to write a neutral encyclopedia based on reliable published sources.  Sandstein  21:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Sandstein. I understand this editorial process much better now, and I apologize to Stephan Schulz for the tenor of my previous remarks. Clt510 (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

While I do not contest the use of the RS policy, I really do think a mention of said article is the lesser of the evils for now. Appreciation of Wikipolicy is not exactly widespread. - RoyBoy 01:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What are the 'evils' in question? What is the greater evil which would result from our not including a source which violates WP:RS and WP:BLP, and which contains demonstrably false claims about a living person? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the damage done to the reputation of WP by letting such claims go unchallenged? Is there no mechanism for defending this organization against nonsensical commentary? Clt510 (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that including "Connolley has been the subject of smear jobs in sloppily-written op-eds" would improve the article. It's not our responsibility to correct the record, as it were — a deceptive blogger is the Post's problem. People have said nasty things about Wikipedia (the project and its various editors) before, people will say nasty things again. We carry on, and we shouldn't make Connelley's biography a battlefield for defending the honor of the project. As it turns out, there are malicious jackasses on the internet; fixing that problem is probably beyond our ability and definitely beyond our scope. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

You said:

I'm not sure that including "Connolley has been the subject of smear jobs in sloppily-written op-eds" would improve the article. It's not our responsibility to correct the record, as it were — a deceptive blogger is the Post's problem.

An op-ed is NOT a blog. and saying that it is sloppily written is merely YOUR opinion, and is not a valid reason to omit any mention of the op-ed from the entry violates WP:NPOV. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I do hope that you'll eventually get around to reading the rest of the discussion, and will understand that I'm not genuinely suggesting the inclusion of that passage. As for 'sloppily written', you're right — it's possible that the blog entry was deliberately deceptive rather than incompetent; I don't really know. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have edited my comment above, to clarify my meaning. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

To allow said false claims to stand. By referencing WMC's reply the to and fro can be accomplished in about 3 sentences. I should add I was unaware of the Solomon piece being a blog (until the COI), as it shows up twice on Google news (one is labeled blog, the other not). My mistake. However, as I alluded to in the COI, the larger context of Climategate makes this more visible and notable. The original meme coming from a blog may be academic shortly. - RoyBoy 00:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Connolley has been reported as editing his own page which appears to be a Conflict Of Interest wp:coi. See: William Connolley and Wikipedia: TurborevisionismDLH (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Like Solomon's op-ed discussed above, this blog post appears to be both confused and inaccurate. It is trivial to look at the history of this article: history. WMC's last edit to it was more than a year ago (in September 2008) and removed a single inaccurate, misplaced category. (For some reason, someone misidentified him as a 'Global warming critic': diff.) His last edit preceding that one was in September 2006, and corrected a typo in an AfD notice: diff. In August 2006, he corrected a typo in the name of his village: diff. He hasn't made a significant edit to this article in more than three years. In total, WMC has made fewer than twenty edits to the article, they have tended to be minor, and the bulk of them took place in 2005.

Repeat after me — blogs are not reliable sources and don't belong in BLPs. It would, in fact, be reasonable to remove the above post from this talk page as a violation of WP:BLP, but I think it's more effective to refute the absurd claim.TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please continue relevant discussion here if it does not directly concern article content. - RoyBoy 00:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Where I work now

Apparently, some want to know where I work now. It isn't hard to find out: User:William M. Connolley will tell you. Whether that is a WP:RS I'll leave you to argue.. I don't watch this page; if you have questions, use my talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick question

So, how many Wikipedia edits does it take for an editor to qualify as notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry? I looked through the rules, and couldn't find any information on this particular metric. Do you have to win a contest or something? Where do I apply? Or are they not taking any more entries?--70.243.153.138 (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to do with number of edits or activity on Wikipedia. What matters is coverage in proper media (newspaper interviews etc) or notability as a academic (recognised in a field). See WP:NOTABILITY--BozMo talk 09:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this article must be some sort of Wikipedia-'opposite day' thing, then. It's good to know you kids like to do that sort of playtime thing, it doesn't pay to be serious all the time. --70.243.153.138 (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that's the poster's way of saying 'the subject doesn't meet the criteria, but congrats on bending your own rules and including this article since he's one of your wiki-buddies.' A sentiment with which I concur, irrespective of how many times it's been shouted down here before. Repeated assertion doesn't create validity. It's silly, egotistical posturing like this that provides ignorant people like global warming deniers with distracting ad hominem arguments. So, good work there. I hope your little vanity page is worth it, WMC. --68.187.10.206 (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He's not watching this. The article has been created by Ed Poor, hardly a "wiki-buddy" of WMC. And it has survived 5 or so AfDs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Stephan, Teenagers in UK/USA often say "whatever" (or N'importe quoi) as a way of trying to save face and pretend they have won when they realise they cannot in fact win an argument (I think it is Tait who does a very good "look at my face am I bothered"). Best to ignore them. --BozMo talk 08:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I think a lot of the people posting to this page are doing an excellent job of ignoring the points raised by those criticizing the inclusion of this article. I particularly like Stephan Schulz here, justifying the survival of the article by pointing out that it has survived. That little piece of reasoning is just precious. Also, who said anything about who started the article? I'm talking about who perpetuates it's inclusion, which certainly looks to be a circle of supporters. As for whether he's watching it, I guess all the edits by him were just accidents, the result of a little Mountain Dew spilled on the keyboard. I'm sure he never even looks at it.--68.187.10.206 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If it was written by Ed Poor, you do realize that Good old Uncle Ed is currently at conservapedia, right?http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Ed_Poor . (Incidentally, I wish him lots of success and good luck there. I genuinely believe that his contributions can make conservapedia a better place. :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Real Climate

I see the Real Climate website listed as an external link, but it's not apparent to me what the connection is. Is Connolley involved with that organization? Should it be noted in the article? I'm not being coy, I saw it suggested somewhere that he was affiliated in some way, but I don't know what the connection is (or isn't) and it seems strange to have an external link to a group without making it clear what the relevance is. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Former contributor. Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I noted it inline with a couple citations to the website. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing

I think the biography section should be made more chronological. But I've already made a series of changes, so I will try to leave off. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, an anonymous editor just removed the final portion that "The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley served as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 ref name=Schiff/ until the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked his administrator status in September of 2009 after another arbitration proceeding. ref "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley". Retrieved 20 December 2009. /ref "

It seems to me that this information is relevant. The only part that's sourced to WIkipedia is the last bit and that seems worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, we really, really shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a source for information about itself. This may sound silly, but it's essentially original research. It may be relevant that William Connolley is no longer a Wikipedia administrator, but unless we have a mention of that fact in a reliable, third-party source, I don't think we should be including it. Robofish (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are right Robofish but after some discussion above we decided it gave a wrong impression if left out and as a short statement was ok under WP:IAR. I think I was the stubbornest and last to accept this argument. --BozMo talk 15:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Added. JettaMann (talk) 17:29, 4 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 [5]) 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." [6]. 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[7][8][9]
• 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 [10]. 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, [11] 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: [12]. 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[13] 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)

Of course, one could look at the non-faked one, DSC_5009-doctoral-certificate. The faked one obviously appears to have been made as a joke from the actualy photograph. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

@Weakopedia: I asked for a link as a courtesy. Thank you for providing one. MastCell ^Talk 18:35, 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)

Connolley's loss of adminship at Wikipedia

SA: You removed the paragraph about Connolley's desysoping with the explanation that it was not reliably sourced to third-party sources.[14] This rationale is incorrect. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. This article is about Connolley, so it's a valid source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Sure, we can use Connolley's blog, but why should we? He's written a lot and obviously not all of it belongs in the article. I think what belongs in the article is that which has been noticed by third-parties. In short, I think the danger of Wikipedia writing about Wikipedia is that the people writing the article are likely to think that Wikipedia itself is more important than it actually is. Compare, for example, Elonka Dunin who is another rather (in)famous editor associated with Wikipedia, but whose association is only noted to the extent that it was noticed by third-parties (and in that case, the answer is it was not really noticed at all!) Why do you disagree? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. This is hardly idle talk or rumor. Connolley's activity at Wikipidia has been highly public; if he wanted it to be kept private, he wouldn't be blogging about it. As for third-parties, I'm fairly certain that this has been covered by Solomon, and probably others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've parsed the definition of "gossip" you offered very well. People can spread rumors and encourage gossip about themselves (it happens in my discipline all the time). What the definition seems to imply is that the idle talk/rumor needs to be about personal/private affairs of the subject of the gossip. The thing doing the gossip in this case is the Wikipedia article (and since the Wikipedia article is anonymous, it certainly seems like it is gossiping to me). Whether the subject of the gossip in question has made those details public or not is irrelevant otherwise it would be impossible to spread rumors about oneself. (Since so-and-so told me, then it isn't gossip? That doesn't seem right!)

Yes, Connolley's activity has been highly public, but only to the extent that it has been reported by third-parties in public spheres, that is the extent to which we should write about it here, right? I'm not saying that all of Connolley's Wikipedia activity is gossip. I'm just saying that the stuff I removed seemed to me to be gossip and since it was sourced to Wikipedia and Connolley it seemed to me to be unworthy of inclusion, unlike, for example, his interview covered in the New Yorker. Whether someone is an administrator or not on Wikipedia is something that may seem extremely relevant to people who edit Wikipedia, but that does not make it relevant for the encyclopedia. I don't even really think this is an issue of privacy, either. I think this is more an issue of self-reference of Wikipedia. I don't think it's a very strong case for you to say that because Lawrence Solomon has blogged about Connolley's status, that somehow means that third-parties have noticed. I mean, I can point to websites written about myself that document in incredible detail the comings-and-goings of my activities at Wikipedia. That does not mean the (hypothetical) article about me should be relying on those investigations.

So let me ask this another way, what makes you think a casual reader should know about whether and how Connolley was an administrator, interacted with ArbCom, or did any of the other Wikipedia-related trivia I removed from the article?

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tend to be a bit of an inclusionist about these sort of things, but I'm going to take a step back from this article until ArbCom makes their proposed decision. I created this section as sort of a reminder that this is something we need to pick up again later. I wasn't expecting you to respond so soon. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I just really think that the details I removed were entirely too self-referential. The idea that Wikipedia even has "administrators" is not something that the general reading public will know about. "Arbitration committee" and "one-revert-per-day"? Fuggetaboutit. These phrases are easy to understand for Wikipedia editors but are gobbelty-gook to the general audience — and seeing as how they were referenced only to Wikipedia metapages and blogs it just did not seem worthy of inclusion. Good writing would deconstruct these ideas if they were important. Can you imagine trying to explain to someone who doesn't write for Wikipedia what any of these concepts are in a biography? It doesn't seem reasonable. However, the rest of the prose about Wikipedia is actually understandable from a non-Wikipedian perspective. That's why I believe it deserves to stay. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to say I support the removal of this factoid, per SA and Artw. Verbal chat 08:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• The information is back in the article, by the way: [15], [16], [17]. NW (Talk) 11:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if people actually discussed this rather than edit warring. I tried to address the criticisms offered by those editors reinserting this poor text, but I'm not sure whether I did a good job since they didn't appear on the talk page to discuss the points listed above. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't notice this thread or that it had been removed more than the time I reverted it. Such timing; has the ant hill been fried by the harsh glare through the AC's magnifying glass, yet? fwiw, this content has been here a while, appropriately, as will future coverage. I'm not touching it, again; for a while, at least. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I never thought I'd say this, but: if people are going to bother to comment, could they make an effort to be constructive and civil like ScienceApologist? MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good advice from MC, as always. Until we have third party WP:RS (note: WP is not a RS) then it must stay out of this BLP. If such RS exist, please bring them here for discussion first. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious - why is it that the information about the subject's desysop is shouted down as irrelevant when it is placed in the article, while his *very* minor political activities receive no such attention? Is it general WP policy to exclude reliably sourced facts (and they are, this has been explained ad nauseum) whenever they may cast a negative light on one of WP's own? The desysop is *directly related* to his WP activities, and is by any measure significant to those activities in themselves. The entire discussion of those activities in the article is to cast him as some sort of victim of the WP culture. How is the desysop anything but highly relevant in a discussion of his relationship with the WP community? If those other WP activities are significant enough to be covered, why not the desysop? I know I'm just talking, since this article is going to remain locked and no one is going to allow the article to reflect anything but the subject's harrowing struggle against people who don't approve of antisocial behavior on WP, but thought I'd pop one more out there anyway. --24.255.175.120 (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Who is shouting? What does political activity have to do with this section? Who defines what is "directly related" to the notable actions of a subject of a biography? I think the answer to that question is, "The sources." Do you have a source other than a blog or Wikipedia itself for the idea that the "desysop" is "highly relevant"? If so, I'd love to see it. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you've summed them up pretty well there. Well, you did leave out all the other sources in the article discussing his WP activities. You did notice that WP is mentioned in the article, right? It's discussed between the part where the article talks about WP and the other part of the article talking about WP. Maybe you need to re-read it and come back, then let me know what you think. --24.255.168.72 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, my point about political activities is that it is far less prominent, yet no one seems to have a problem with its inclusion. Might want to work on your reading comprehension, you seem to be missing a lot. --24.255.168.72 (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)