User talk:HooperBandP/Sandbox4

You can see the current RFC on William Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/William_M._Connolley_2 for some information gathered by Travb, I have not gone of that information myself. There is also my own statement, I am willing to add in my dealings with William so far, in relation to his administrative abuse, I just don't see a section to add a statement. Here is a summary however for you to use:

1. Violation of Protection Policy
   • William protecting state terrorism and the united states now titled Allegations of state terrorism by the United States: [1]
   • Removing large instances of content which is not BLP or Copyright violations: 15K in text all together. [2]
   • William then reduces the protection to semi-protection: [3]
2. Violation of Blocking Policy
   • William later removes over 30% of the article [4]
   • The information was readded since William never attempted to seek consensus, the revert was by Supergreenred: [5]
   • William then blocks Supergreenred: [6]
   • To be fair, I will note later Supergreenred was found to be a sockpuppet, however William was not aware of this at the time, making it a blocking violation. The exact reason given is "tendentious editing" and the post on Supergreenred's talk page never mentioned him being a sockpuppet: [7]
3. Violation of Blocking Policy #2
   • Following Williams removal of over 60K worth of additional text, other editors began reverting in protest
     • RedPenOfDoom: [8] with the edit summary: 1 protest reversion -William Connely's edits were not concensus (and were not for POV)
     • BernardL: [9] with the edit summary: reverting once, in protest (as per talk)
     • Travb\Inclusionist then commited 3 reverts: [10] [11][12] in his third revert he is stating he will seek page protection.
     • William then blocks Travb\Inclusionist: [13] which is clearly against the blocking policy. [14]
       • Another issue comes up related that may be a violation, or is obviously not a fair method. The page is protected by a 3rd party admin [15] due to Travb\Inclusionists request, however William then removes the protection: [16]

I moved it into the article and added a section for other parties to add their information. (I made one change: taking out the sentence that you said you couldn't find the spot to put it, as now that its there that would be relevant. Thought it made sense. If not, will revert. Thanks for assisting) Hooper (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlink

"state terrorism and the united states" should be "State terrorism and the United States". — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

List provided by Travb

William's violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes with others

Three independent administrators: Chaser,[17] FeloniousMonk, [18] and Viridae[19] all found that William abused his administrative powers by blocking editors he was in an edit war with, violating Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes.

Here are William's violation of Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disputes. All blocks can be found on William's block page.

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

Proof of Editing Disputes

To round out the information being provided I have started to compile and detail the list originally posted by Travb. I did this for two reasons, to see if the information is true, and further to see if William was in content disputes, I will update here before moving into the main article:

• 2. Lapsed Pacifist
  • Williams edits to article: January 27 January 27 January 27 January 28, 2008
  • Block: 22:02, 28 January 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Lapsed Pacifist (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (repeated re-insertion of unsourced material)
• 3. Jaymes2
  • Williams edits to article: January 23 January 24 January 24 January 27
  • Related: January 27 (Another involved admin recusing themselves)
  • Block: 14:43, 27 January 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Jaymes2 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (repeated insertion of tripe)
• 4. Sterculius
  • Williams edits to article: December 22 December 22 December 23 December 23 December 23 (removes protection from article he is editing because he blocked user he is in dispute with) December 23 December 23 December 23
  • Block: 09:32, 23 December 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sterculius (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Tendentious edtis at G)W
• 6. Wedjj
  • Williams edits to article: December 16 (reverts Wedjj) December 16(reverts Wedjj) December 16 (reverts Wedjj)
  • Other: [28] Raymond Arritt warns William not to go over 3RR. [29] Williams block message specifying Wedjj was blocked over the Climate Change article where the reverts were taking place. [30] Wedjj was later found to be a sockpuppet, however this was unknown at the time, and not presented as the block reasoning.
  • Block: 22:34, 16 December 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wedjj (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 hours ‎ (disruptive editing)
• 7. Supergreenred
  • Details in original complaint.
• 8. Britcom
  • Williams edits: July 4 July 4 July 5 July 5 (admiting to wiki-lawyering oddly) July 5 (reverting Britcom) July 5 (removing talk page comments)
  • The block: 19:38, 5 July 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Britcom (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 hours ‎ (Restoring incivil comment)
• 9. Britcom - 2nd time
  • Williams edits: June 16 June 16 June 17 June 17(Williams reverts a bolding Britcom added to an anon users comments) June 18
  • The block: 21:52, 19 June 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Britcom (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Incivility)
• 11. ConfuciusOrnis
  • Williams edits: September 5 September 6 September 8
  • Related: [31] Discussion where admin warns William about blocking people he is in an edit dispute with. Further states no civil nor NPA violation occurred.
  • The block: 08:49, 7 September 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (incivility)
  • Additional: William issued another block, again against the blocking policy, however this time he reverted:
    • 08:18, 10 September 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (incivility)
    • 08:45, 10 September 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) unblocked ConfuciusOrnis (Talk | contribs) ‎ (provocation)n
• 14. Lapsed Pacifist - 2nd time.
  • Williams edits to article: March 11 March 12 March 13 March 14 March 16 March 17
  • Block: 18:42, 17 March 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Lapsed Pacifist (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (incivility)
• 16. Lordvolton
  • Williams edits: March 4 March 2 Feb 28
  • Additional: [32] Statement user was blocked for did not contain incivility. [33] Bozmo votes delete on the AfD, [34] makes an additional comment, [35] then declines LordVoltrons block request.
  • Block: 08:32, 4 March 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Lordvolton (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 8 hours ‎ (incivility)
• 24. UBeR
  • Williams edits to article: April 2 April 2 April 3 April 3
  • Block reason: Block reason William stating he blocked Uber for a statement on the article talk page. The statement was "What's interesting is that William had continuously fucked up this page with replacing documentary with propaganda on many occasions"
  • Block: 21:22, 3 April 2007 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "UBeR (Talk | contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (deliberate incivility)

Add Request

I wish to be added as a party to this incident as well. WMC (Connolley) has twice has used other adminstrators as meatpuppets to block me from editing articles in which he and I have had content disputes.

The first block was after WMC had thrice reverted my edits in the Fred Singer article. After i reviewed his (extremely lengthy) revert history in this article, I concluded the edits constituted sneaky vandalism by using the article as a WP:coatrack for discrediting GW skeptics. I reverted his revert, using the word "vandalism". He immediately posted a threat to my talk page claiming the use of this word was a personal attack, and warning me of an impending block. I replied with my justification for using the word to my and his talk pages. Within two minutes (!) of my doing this, another administrator (user:BozMo) banned me for "repeated personal attacks after being warned". Bozmo has defended WMC in previous edit warring cases, has a personal friendship with WMC, and even admits to holding WMC's personal talk page in his watch list. His actions were clearly a proxy act for WMC, and not those of a disinterested observer. I also note that I had also been accused of vandalism as well, and yet Bozmo took no action against anyone but me.

The second block came a day later, and was again explicitly at the request of WMC. A user (which I suspect of being a sockpuppet of WMC as well) rolled back my edits five times without discussing any of the changes. I warned the user, and when he persisted, posted a 3RR violation. An administrator showed up, gave the user a friendly warning, issued no warning or ban to me, and closed the case. WMC then posted a request to administrator user:Hu12's talk page to ban me for my edits to this article. (text of this here-> [36]). Hu12 did so, then unprotected the page I note that, though both editors I was accussed of "warring with" had engaged in more reverts than I did, Hu12 took no action against either. When I asked Hu12 to explain this, he refused ([37])

Finally, I stress that my edits to Fred Singer which were being rolled out were unsourced disparaging material, which other editors were reinserting. My deletion of such was per WP:BLP and such removal should not count towards the 3RR rule (though I did not break this rule in any case).

Please let me know if you need this material in another format, or need additional information. Thank you. FellGleaming (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment providing more specific diffs for WC and your actions will be helpful to verify your statements and interpretations of the actions. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Added as you asked (though no user, regardless of supporting or not supporting WMC, has to ask to be added, just add yourself). There is now a place for you to discuss your experience with the User. As RedPen stated, any links to DIFFs you have will help. Hooper (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)